| Author | Message | ||
| Madelle |
But Kelly, what if that's NOT a command (that men will rule over women), but instead a prophecy? Knowing that sin has now entered the world, God looks forward and sees the results. The well-documented need men have to rule over women and children (and other men) is a fundamental weakness of their characters--a result of sin. Their need to be in charge limits their own personal growth. It causes countless problems in personal, social, and international relations. Anything less than democratic egalitarianism has too much potential for evil to be blessed by God. Madelle | ||
| Maryann |
' ' ;-))))) | ||
| Colleentinker |
Lori, good point. That would definitely qualify as the Law to which Paul refers in 1 Cor. 14:34. Madelle, your point is also good. The miracle of living in the New Covenant and experiencing the new birth redeems and changes everything in our lives. The curse in Genesis 3:16 was the curse under which men and women, cut off from God, were to live. It's the curse to which we're born. When God brings us to spiritual life, our relationships change. The Holy Spirit becomes part of our relationships (see 1 Corinthians 6:12-20), and the curse becomes transformed. Ephesians 5 explains how women and men are to function in the new covenant. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Women are to "submit" (there's that word that means one thing in a worldly context and quite another in a born-again context) to their husbands as to the Lord. Essentially, men and women have different roles but equal value. If a man loves his wife as Christ loves the church, his energy will be spent building, nurturing, helping, reassuring, and supporting her. If a woman submits to such a man as to the Lord she will become vulnerable to be loved, to release responsibility for ALL the family's needs and allow him to carry some, she will experience security and empowerment. Such relationships are rare. None are perfect. But the Holy Spirit at least can redeem many of our scars and deep wounds so we can become more and more able to love each other for God. And, yes, some marriages cannot be saved. In order for a sick marriage to be saved, both parties must want to make it work. Both parties must be willing to grow and change and submit to each other. I have a personal conviction (I can't say this is a universal truth) that many Adventist marriages are cult marriages. That does not mean they cannot become healthy. But both must want to. By a cult marriage I mean it was contracted based on Adventist expectations and checklists, not on commitment to Jesus and mutual growth. The miracle is that Jesus can transform a cult marriage into a godly one. But sometimes one party refuses to allow God to be first and to heal the marriage. Please don't hear me approving of divorce. But, as most of you know, I went through a divorce long before I left Adventism. There are so many things I would do differently if I could, but things being what they are, I can affirm and say with gratefulness: God redeems our mistakes, bad decisions, ignorance, frantic "good works", and lack of trust. He really does bring death to life and transform brokenness into something new and strong in him. I praise God for redemption, love, and transformation. Colleen | ||
| Lori |
Colleen--I think, the predominate theme of your post could be summed up in a short sentence. God can turn cursing/suffering into blessing!! God can take the curse that was placed upon all mankind and through our daily positive attitude toward his Word he can transform the curse into a super-spectacular blessing of His grace that is exceedingly abundant over anything we could ever ask for and is completely incomprehensible to human viewpoint. I think too often in our humanity that we want to see the spectacular-ness of the Spiritual life. But as Corinthians 13 teaches the spectacular gifts of the Spiritual life are not the greatest gifts. The routine-ness of our Spiritual lives is what makes them GREAT!!! Routinely partaking of God's word on a daily basis; never allowing the business of a day to keep you from "eating" from the word of God. This is the greatest Spiritual Life. It's not about what we do for someone else or how much we give or if we can give an eloquent statement or a fabulous testimony. These may make us look good to humans but the important thing is how we look to God. And the only way to look good to God is by daily placing yourself in His word, daily "eating and metabolizing" the mind of Christ. By doing this routine, simple thing you have the means of God turning cursing and suffering into blessing beyond your imagination. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Beautifully said, Lori! The new birth and its new reality is completely a miracle! Colleen | ||
| Loneviking |
Kelly, I know I'm going to get rocks thrown at me for this, but I'm going to do it anyway! In answer to your question about 1 Cor. 14:34-- Paul taught consistently that men and women had roles to fill within the church. Women were not to be in positions of leadership---such as pastors/elders/apostles. You can see this in his instructions to the two young pastors Timothy and Titus in those books. Paul specifically said that the reason why women weren't permitted to teach and hold leadership positions was because of Eve. Paul says, in so many words, that she was the first false teacher and after the fall the role of teacher was denied to women. Remember that Paul is not just a rabbi who converted to Christianity. According to Galatians, Paul says that he was taught by God for two years in the Arabian desert. So the things that he writes should have authority for Christians---we shouldn't be looking for ways to get around what he writes. As for the question of law, Paul mentions several laws in his writings--the book of Romans is chock full of several examples. You have to carefully examine to see what law he is talking about. Here, Paul is not trying to put us back under the Old Covenant laws, which included the Ten Commandments. However, under the New Covenant, lets not forget that there are still examples to follow (such as 'forsake not the assembling together), and actions that are prohibited as incompatible with Christianity---such as adultery and homosexuality. I would say that Paul here is talking about the example seen in the Pentuatech--which was the first five books of the Old Testament and constituted the 'Law' for the Jews. The example in these books is that of male headship---especially in worship and activities of the temple, which was the church of its' time. Incidentally, there are still churches that haven't sold out on this point. The non-instrumental Church of Christ, many of the Evangelical Free, along with several Pentecostal groups follow Pauls teaching and it does work well! Bill | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Loneviking! I hope I got your name right this time! You are a swell (in the modern sense) brother! There is a sense in many circles, unfortunately mostly those who have been negatively "feminized", whether they are governed by man or women, that more and more are citing the Apostle Paul ALMOST as an incovenience. You know my opinion about Paul since we've discussed it before, but AS YOU POINTED OUT, Paul received his teaching from God Himself, hence his terms, such as "my gospel" and a few other that indicate the UNIQUENESS OF HIS TEACHING. Here is a list of some of the "inconveniences" according to many, taught by Paul, which have been brushed under the rug with the excuse of being of "contradictions": Jesus CALLED US ALL TO BAPTIZE. AT LEAST ALL THOSE WHO WERE TO BE CALLED HIS "APOSTLES". Paul says HE WAS NOT CALLED TO BAPTIZE, thus changing the ORIGINAL text of the Great Commission. The text of Acts 15, the authoritative COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM: Compare it to the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 8. Who gave Paul authority to "relax" James, and the other apostles' command for the Gentiles to refrain from "meat sacrificed to idols"? Peter says that "love covers a multitude of sins". (Anyone should be careful as to how to explains this away because all explanations I ever heard, outisde the its literal meaning, STARTS A CULT!) Paul teaches that Salvation is by Grace alone. What an inconvenience for those who want to impose a "charity" system in the Body as a means of atoning for temporal sins! James says that the prayer for a sick person, will not only heal him but also "forgive his sins", the favorite verse of some catholic priests I know. Paul says that Salvation is by Grace alone. What an inconvenience to those who want to ressurect the priestly role in the Body today. Again, James says that prayer for a sick person will "forgive sins". Paul says in Ephesians 1:7 that IN JESUS, we have forgiveness of our Sins and redemption through the blood and there is no other ADDITION to it! What an inconvenience to those who want to revive the priestly ministry in the Body and implement a system of "confessions"... I could go on and on! I believe as you CORRECTLY pointed out in another discussion in this forum that we have not learned to live with apparent contradictions in the Bible, and thus, INCORRECTLY try to reason that the Bible "COULD NOT BE SAYING THUS AND SUCH" (my words quoting yours). I believe the only way to learn how to live with such "apparent contradictions" is to BELIEVE THAT GOD FINISHED THE CICLE OF REVELATIONS WHEN HE REVEALED THE CROWN OF REVELATIONS TO PAUL, WHO THEN REVEALED IT TO US. ALL WAS OKAY UNTIL PAUL TAUGHT WHAT HE TAUGHT US (BIBLE CRONOLOGY APPLIED). SO THEY ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS AT ALL, BUT AS THE KILLING OF LAMBS PASSED AWAY, SOME OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE OTHER APOSTLES ALSO NEED TO BE PLACED UNDER THE LIGHT OF THE CROWN OF THE REVELATIONS, GRACE, AND BE CONSIDERED AS SOMETHING WITH AN EXPIRATION DATE IN THE OVERALL AND TIMELY PLAN OF GOD! This is very dear to me and you my friend Loneviking (not Loveviking, as I used to refer to you before) have given me the honor of discussing such things with me in the past and explaining your points through the perspective of the Church of Christ, but AS YOU SEE, I HAVE NOT CHANGED YET! AND NEITHER HAVE YOU! To finish within the subject: If Paul had such a bold authority, and we (you) have established that he received his authority from God, let us not change the meaning of his words without careful understanding of his calling, his ministry, his Apostolic authority AND THE TIMING OF HIS REVELATION TO US. (My opinion only...) A fraternal embrace! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Lydell |
Loneviking, the interesting thing to me is that it seems apparent from what we observe in the Christian community that the Lord isn't listening to your personal theology. Instead He has gifted some women for preaching today. Joyce Meyers is one very excellent example. If He doesn't want them leading, doesn't want them preaching, then why has He given them a gift to do so, and why is He using them mightily to further His kingdom? If He doesn't want women in leadership roles, then why use them in the pulpit to bring people to places of healing? If He doesn't want them standing before men to speak, then why annoint them with an ability to lead people to Christ while speaking fromt he pulpit? It appears He has "goofed", according to you. | ||
| Lydell |
You know, we have heard a couple of Church of Christ preachers on a morning program here in our area who have repeatedly stated "we are members of the Churches of Christ because it is THE church of Christ. There is no other." Wondered if you were aware that your organization teaches this. | ||
| Graceambassador |
Loneviking II Hi Loneviking. Just a disclaimer some questions: I do not subscribe to the notion that Paul is teaching that ALL women are false teachers, or potentially false teachers, in Eve. The obvious balance to this text is that women are glorified by Paul himself in their teaching of other young women and in the raising of their children. That is not the profile of a part of the human race that is potentially or even "blood-lined" to be false teachers. Lydell cites Joyce Meyers as an example of a woman teacher and Joyce Meyers' words are a testimony that the mainstream charismatic message she preaches (she has been to our church) is not anything that has not been taught in the Body since 1800's. Whether she is a false teacher or not must be determined by the WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT and not by the TENETS OF FAITH OF A DENOMINATION. Joyce Meyers does not claim to be a leader in the Body as the type of leader Paul forbids a woman to be. As long as this remains this way, I believe she is in Biblical balance. And none of my words imply necessarily agreement with her teaching or approach. I use her as an example of a woman who teaches outside the boundaries of what Paul taught to be a Church structure... Thus judging her to be a false teacher for being a woman is incorrect. Take for example Joyce Meyer's core ministry: She does not teach "doctrine" but she sticks to issues that concern everyday living such as dealing with depression, inner conflicts and others and the everyday bouts with life. As such, she is not teaching (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION) the kind of teaching that Paul forbids a woman to teach. Unfortunately, all falls down to earth because the Body today does not function under the same Apostolic authority that Paul speaks about. So,in order to criticize Joyce Meyers and any other preachers today, we need to take a good look at ourselves and our "systems" and check if we and they fall into the category of Biblical Apostolic order Also, as I pointed out before, the words of Paul are inspired and authoritative and moreover, DEFINITE. Paul did use the words "usurp the authority of the HUSBAND" in the Body, indicating that at least some of the women he mentioned were married and had husbands in the ministry. It is a matter of Godly order. Here is someone whose wife is ordained, my three sister in laws EACH ONE LEADS A DIFFERENT MISSION IN BRAZIL IN A DIFFERENT PLACE, my mother in Law is an ordained minister and none of them can be blamed for USURPING the authority of the husband. They provide exactly the type of service a woman is supposed to provide according to Biblical example. Their ordination is naturally recognized by the people so our church decided to sanction it and officiated it. (Note my distinction between church and Body). Now the question: The Church of Christ claims that we should keep everything as close to the New Testament as it could possibly be. (Basically that's their teaching). Tha's why they do not use musical instruments. Now, does your Church teach that the New Testament Church followed very close, and was run by the Synagogue and that THIS IS NOT THE PATTERN OF CHURCH taught by Paul? Do they teach that if we have to follow the pattern of the ENTIRE News Testament we would have to practice some of the Jewish Rites and pay tithes of our crops? If they don't teach why not? If they do what is the standard to say that something must be followed to the letter today and some not? Just a question. I will not write upon your answers to these questions unless you ask me to do so! Be blessed according to Eph. 1:3 Grace Ambassador | ||
| Chuckiej |
GA! Long time no see! If I really believed that Paul thought he had authority to change, abrogate, or relax anything that was taught by Christ or the disciples, I would condemn him as a heretic and literally tear every last book of his out of my Bible. He would be no better than Mohammed, Ba'ha'ullah, EGW or anybody else who claims to have the definitive revelation that supersedes what came before. I am not going to go point by point and attempt to refute or harmonize the examples you gave, I will just point out two things: 1) Paul's writings are the EARLIEST Christian writings that we have. Most of them were written decades before the Gospels or the general Epistles by most estimates. Revelation wasn't penned until around 100 A.D., 30+ years after Paul was martyred. If God closed the cycle of revelation after Paul, then just about everything else in the NT that claims to be from God is lying. Secondly, Paul praised the Bereans for testing his teachings against Scripture already in existence (Acts 17:11). None of the NT canon had been written yet except maybe a gospel or two, so the majority of scriptures they searched had to be the OT. His endorsement of their actions shows that he thought he was subject to the same scrutiny as anybody else claiming revelation, and that his words could survive that scrutiny. Answers to most alleged contradictions can be found here: http://www.tektonics.org/contrad.html Chuck | ||
| Graceambassador |
Chuck: Great to see you as well! I don't want to go on in this since our sources of information are different. It appears that you are about to say as many say that Paul's writings aere written even before his conversion and that what is accredited to him is not his anyway, as many claim in "churchianity". But, please, just take Paul's words in at least a few of his books, which, as a Bible student, you will not have difficulty to find in his writings. Such words are: "the mystery now revealed to me...." "revealed to none else before... "only now revealed to his holy appostles" "my gospel..." I know that there is a group who attempts to dimish Paul's authority to keep their grip in the church with their legalistic thinking. That, my friend, includes the SDA with or without Ellen. Paul develops a notion of "timing" when he teaches about God and his "perfect administration of times" and "God's fullness of time", and in Ephesians 2 when he uses "times past" "ages to come" and "but now" to explain our "dispensational" period (for lack of a better word). Groups have tryed to explain away these things from the Bible and label a "dispensationalist" anyone who attempts to explain this into some kind of chronological WILL OF GOD thereby maintaining that the most insignificant aspects of the Law ALREADY FULFILLED IN AND BY CHRIST are still in force (sabbath included). Paul calls such people "witches" when he asks the Galatians "Who has bewithed you". Obviously one must be a witch to bewitch someone. Annihalists, arminianists, adventisys, sabbateists and pseudo atheists (we have one in this forum) and others are within these groups who consider Paul's writings at best a good piece of literature and at worse the evils that you mentioned in the first lines of your post. By the way, these arguments are not strange to me neither to those who prefer Grace over legalism. Usually, they are poorly creative. No one calls God a liar for having commanded the slaughtering of little lambs in the past and them finishing this epoch by sending the "Lamb (HIS) of God that takes away the sin of the world". Why then would you call God a liar if per adventure (and we know in Paul it is per purpose) He decided that the Gentiles should not be subject to the insignificance of the rites of the Jewish people in their days and feats, neither the Jews, should they have received the Messiah and not be "blinded and for the election sake our enemies" as Paul teaches? Would you call God a liar for establishing the sacrifices and then saying "I would have mercy not sacrifice"? Would you call Jesua a liar for shouting from the cross "IT IS FINISHED" (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, NOTHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE, I FULFILLED IT ALL) Would you call God a liar when HE moved us from the glory of Moses and the Law for the Glory of Jesus (we are moved from glory into GLORY). Would you call God a liar when he moved us from "faith into FAITH" or the SUPPRESSED Jewish faith (maintained by the "isms" or groups I mentioned above) into the supernatural FAITH that we receive by the Spirit (we are moved from faith into FAITH)? To deny God's movement through time and the progression of the revelation until we fully understood His intent in Grace, is the role of those who keep BEWITCHING anadvised and malinformed members of churchianity, and, if I may add, if they could, they would even deceive the VERY ELECT. Thank God their power is limited in time and scope! Thanks your response, but please, study the Chronogram of God's program which today is contained in most Bible copy's appendixes, if you can't see it in the Biblical text. Also, I admire you greatly for having the courage to defend adventism in this "former adventist" forum even without declaring it openly. I can always love and respect a courageous man! Of course it is just my opinion and do not lose your glory over it... Thanks for the challenge anyway! You're blessed according to Eph 1:3. Grace Ambassador | ||
| Graceambassador |
Chuck: One more point and I am signing off before I am called a "bully" "arrogant" and others... I could write a book this week on events of the second world war and then next week about events of the first world war. It does not mean that the second world war came before the first only because the book was written before. Since there are lurkers around, please, allow me to tell you that deceit comes when one tries to confuse the "events narrated in a piece of literature and the time of its writing" with the "timing of such events itself". I am not saying that you are practicing such deceit but it appears that someone has practiced it upon you... (chuckles). Grace Ambassador | ||
| Chuckiej |
GA, I do not believe that Paul's letters were written before his conversion. I never even implied that. Furthermore, I DO NOT believe Paul is a heretic or a liar, but if I believed he contradicted Jesus, I would call him that.I FIRMLY believe in progressive revelation, but if we do not have a standard to measure later revelation against, we could be hoodwinked by any Mohammed or Joseph Smith that rose up later. We start from vastly different positions, so I won't go into all the areas we disagree on. In general, however, your "would you call God a liar" statements are inapposite, because God gave advance warning of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33) and Jesus' atoning sacrifice (Is. 53, Zech 12) so that they would NOT be perceived as deviations from the truth, but as progressive revelation. Jesus established his words as the norm for the times leading up to his return. Therefore, by definition anything that contradicts him is false. If someone came proclaiming "Behold, Jesus is in the desert" or "Behold, he is in the secret chambers" we would know them for a liar immediately, because the Lord says don't believe it (Mt. 24:26). If the person went on to say, "but I have authority from God to abrogate that command" why on earth should we believe it? We would only have their word for it, with nary a heads-up from Scripture that a radical paradigm shift is coming, whereas we DID have such warning with the New Covenant. Finally, of course I realize that the EVENTS in the Gospels happened before they were written. Give me a little credit here. My point is that if the cycle of revelation were closed after Paul, then anything that purported to be inspired after that (regardless of when the events reported happened) would be false. John clearly says he's on Patmos when he received the Revelation, he wasn't sentenced there until the 90's A.D. Paul was martyred in the mid-60's. Therfore, If God stopped revealing after Paul REVELATION CANNOT BE INSPIRED, AND THE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS RECEIVED FROM JESUS MUST BE FALSE. Finally a note on your methodology (note that I AGREE with the statement that Paul is inspired; this is purely a methodological tip) using Paul to prove Paul is fatally circular. We could quote statements from EGW that show she thought she was inspired, as well as statements about how God works that would bolster her claim. Yet we still don't believe her. Self-serving statements alone aren't enough to prove the authenticity of anything. | ||
| Graceambassador |
Chuck: You still did not understand that I am speaking of "revelation" in terms of Salvation which is the concern here in this Forum. Some believe that it is by Grace and you and a few others believe that it is by keeping the law, specifically the Sabbath. The Book of Revelation is about the end times, which is a period, that as simplistic as I may put, all is ALREADY decided about Salvation, not ALL who would be saved, one may argue, but about SALVATION. My problem with most SDA (with or without Ellen) is that when we discuss something, they show that they are very veresed and capable in their arguments but then ALL OF A SUDDEN they pretend not to understand the simplest of concepts. I can interpret this position in a few ways: 1 - Pure ignorance (it is not a sin nor a shame, I am in many subjects such as brain surgery) 2 - Purposeful gross misinterpretation with the intent to deceive. 3 - If the Bible does not agree with my point, then I will appeal to point number two. 4 - If a text does not agree with my points then I will try to reason such texts completely out of the Bible and claim that the Bible could not possibly be saying that. I believe the inspiration of the ENTIRE BIBLE, with no AIDS OR ADDITIONS. I also believe, however, that God's plan has to be divided asunder (the greek translation of "rightly dividing the word of truth) in a way that it makes it organized and pointing to something. With that in mind, I've proven to many Christians that the GOSPEL DOES HAVE LOGIC AND IT DOES MAKE SENSE, contrary to what is preached from the pulpits today, i.e., that it is impossible to understand the Gosple by logic. (What sentence could more akin to the OCCULT) Example: The seed that would bruise Satan's head points to Jesus. Shilo points to Jesus Bethel points to Jesus The deliverer of Exodus points to Jesus The LAW points to Jesus (Paul says as a "tutor") The SABBATH POINTS TO JESUS. I do not keep sabbaths. BUT THE SABBATH KEEPS ME! Praise His name! and so on and so forth in the eintire Bible. To fall into the trap of semantics with the terms "the revelation given to Paul and the book of Revelation" I think appears disingenous. If you believe in progressive revelation as you pointed out, (I believe you think you do, thus you are not LEGALLY lying), then you'd have to reconsider your position on the Sabbath. But this is difficult for you and all SDA's (with or without Ellen) BECAUSE HOLDING ON TO THE SABBATH AND DIETS GIVES THEM A HOLD AND A CONTROL IN THEIR OWN SALVATION, WHICH APPEARS TO BE CONFORTABLE BUT IT IS DERADFUL. This is a far cry from the revelation given to Paul. The CROWN OF REVELATIONS. JESUS CONTROLS MY SALVATION AS THE SOURCE, THE EXECUTOR, AND THE SUSTAINER. I love you in the Lord and respect you as a sincere brother as I pointed out before in a private e-mail. Let's not start an endless process of ping pong mail since your foundation for Salvation is different than mine. Mine is SURE yours is POSSIBLE IF ONE KEEPS "THIS AND THAT". Grace Ambassador | ||
| Chuckiej |
GA I fully agree, as far as I'm concerned, we can end this "ping-pong" because we are both grossly misunderstanding each other because of our different starting points. To try to deconstruct all that to have a meaningful dialogue is a task too daunting for me. Have a great day and God bless Chuck | ||
| Allenette |
From my wicked perch, reading these posts, and chuckling reading the opposing views,,,, I think the most enlightened statemenmt is Chuck's last one, "Have a great day and God Bless". | ||
| Loneviking |
GA, Thank you so much for your kind words of support. It's nice to know have at least a little support on my side! :) Lydell, A question for you to consider: Do numbers mean that a movement is 'blessed'? How do you decide that a woman has a 'gift' that goes against the counsel that women shouldn't teach? If, as it seems, your answer is in both the numbers of people who attend and are 'helped', I would caution you to look at other groups who are also blessed by using this criteria---such as the Moonies, the Mormons, the exploding population of Muslims to name just a few. Didn't Jesus say that at His return there would be those who say (paraphrasing now), we did all these great things in your name and Jesus in turn says, 'I never knew you'?! Folks, what this little controversy on this thread is about is a much larger issue of how do we approach the Bible. When I became fed up with the SDA church and began to really dig into the Bible I kept coming up again and again with two commands----read the Word, and obey the Word. I decided to do exactly that and quit playing the game of finding a way around what the Bible clearly says. A good example of this is found on the thread about Hell and the Rapture. SDA's deny that hell lasts 'forever and ever'---even though they are very content to say that heaven lasts forever. This in spite of the fact that the word translated 'forever and ever' is the same in both cases! There just is no reason to say 'forever and ever' means one thing in one place and something different in the same book! Anyway, my approach now is to accept what the Scriptures literally say unless a literal interpretation is just nonsensical. That is also the approach taken by the C of C. Yes, this position is often laughed at by others as being simplistic. However, one thing I do know is that on the judgement day I can stand before God and say that I followed His word as it was written and not as I wanted it to be. And Lydell, the C of C is congregational. Each congregation is autonomous and I do know that some teach that the C of C is the only true church. So what? You find folks in just about any church that will claim that their church is the only true church. Does that nullify the rest of the churchs' beliefs and practices such as to make them false? Sorry, I can't agree if that is your position............. Just a simple Christian following the Bible........ | ||
| Windmotion |
Thank you for all of those who have been praying. My husband is now home from rehab and is on antibuse, which is supposed to make him violently sick if he tries to drink any alcohol. But we still have a long road yet. He has also reopened communication with the local SDA pastor. For him it is one extreme or the other I guess. Loneviking, when you quote Jesus as saying "depart from me, I never knew you" to some who "do many wonderful works" in His name at the time of His second coming, remember Jesus is speaking to those people who never had a relationship with Him. I wasn't sure if you were using that verse to refer to Moonies or women preachers. I have heard this verse used against the doctrine of eternal security, and this is simply not the case. Jesus did't say "depart from me for I have forgotten you," or "depart from me for I have cast you out." The people Jesus was talking to were total fakes, not Christians who had taken a wrong turn somewhere. Thanks for praying!! Hannah | ||
| Lydell |
You asked, "how do you decide if a woman has a gift?" I would say it's the same way you can recognize if a man has a gifting from God. Their lives reflect their relationship with the father,they demonstrate the love of God in their lives and ministries, their ministry points attention to the Father instead of themselves, what they teach agrees with scripture, and the results of the ministry are people being freed from oppression, sin, and all other baggage and developing closer relationships with the Lord. The Moonies, Mormans, and Muslims wouldn't fit in any of those categories. Do numbers mean that a movement is blessed? No. But changed lives do. Not lives that are merely different, but lives that are lived closer to the Lord. No, claiming that a particular group is the only true church is only one thing that would tip me off that they are false. With the Church of Christ, I'm inclined to look at what we see as being their unbiblical teachings on no music in the church, and their attitude that the gifts of the Spirit are no more, and that basically, God no longer speaks to people today except directly thru the Bible. All are contrary to the scriptures. It's not just one thing I disagree with your church on. Sorry. |
