Christian Issues

• 3 Comments

•

What is the difference between a "ruler" and a "leader"?

Short and simple (and leaving a lot of blanks)

  • A ruler can lead from anywhere. Front, back, middle. As a participant or not. "do this and I'll have coffee" is an option. A ruler is more forceful (sometimes of necessity, sometimes out of character)
  • A leader gathers information (this is not ruled out with a "ruler") makes a decision based on the input of others (also not ruled out with a "ruler") and states a goal. The attitude is "Let us ALL go in this direction - I'll be the first to step out."

A leader is (by definition) a participant in the achieving of the goal. A ruler may or may not be.

What is the difference between "having authority" and "taking authority"?

There is a line from "Braveheart" the movie. William Wallace says,

"he is not my king." The interrogator tells him (not a direct quote), "oh...he IS your king. Whether you accept it or not makes no difference, he IS your king."

"Having authority" means that...well...the authority is inherent in your position, regardless of whether or not those you have authority over accept it or not. The authority is sometimes God-given, sometimes government-given, sometimes "other"-given (organizations, etc.) The proper attitude toward a person who "haves authority" is an attitude of submission.
"Taking authority" (to me) means that submission is not freely given, it must be taken. Sometimes this is because it is an illegitimate authority, or that a legitimate authority is being abused. Sometimes it is because the legitimate authority is being ignored.

Whether or not the king in Braveheart "had" a legitimate authority, he "took" authority over William Wallace because of Wallace's refusal to submit.

So we see that one does not exclude the other (the king with a legitimate authority "took" authority over Wallace".

On a board of directors there is a legitimate authority in the elected chair. The chair has the authority to lead the meeting in an ordered manner. When a person present attempts to hijack the meeting, the chair also has the right (and responsibility) to "take authority" and get the meeting back on track.

The person who is the "hijacker" is "taking authority" (or attempting to), but they do not "have" authority from a legitimate source. Regardless of the attempt (even if successful) people are free to follow (or not) the source of an illegitimate "taken" authority.

Bottom line?

In my ideal world, leaders would be more plentiful than rulers.

In my ideal world, "taking authority" would not be needed. If those under a person who "has" legitimate authority willingly submitted to that authority, there would be no need for the "taking" of it.

• 2 Comments

•

(With the name removed to make things interesting...but those who know...know)

"...is adopting a "literalistic" reading of the Bible when he takes Paul's 2,000-year-old words as proof for all time that the Supreme Being --!(#%&#)@*$(&%--.

"It's the same process of logic that leads to supporting slavery," -$*@$&%- said, noting that the apostle of Jesus also did not oppose slavery.

"It's important for people to understand that the holy scriptures is a very nuanced document. I think we need to allow people room to come to a new understanding,"

Not applicable for all time, same process that leads us to supporting slavery.

Question: is this an egalitarian supporting women in the pulpit? Or an Anglican supporting homosexual marriage?

• 10 Comments

•

I'm still reading in Genesis 1 and 2.

I read that man was created first - there is an order that humans were created in.  Whether that means anything may be debatable.

I read that it was to the man that God gave the directions to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (in the more detailed account in Genesis 2) - before the woman was even created.  Scripture does not record that the woman was present to receive the instruction.

I read that Eve was not present when Adam had the responsibility of naming the animals...she had not been created yet.

I read that when God declared, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.", it was before the fall.

I read that when the serpent approached Eve, it was a very familiar approach..."Did God REALLY say...?"

(Around here we call them "serpent questions":  "Does the Bible REALLY say...?"  or..."Does it REALLY mean THAT?!?!"  or..."Does that REALLY apply to us today?"  Serpent questions.)

I read that after the fall, it was Adam that God questioned.

The all-knowing and all-seeing Creator of the universe would have known exactly what had happened...yet he went to Adam first.

In Ephesians 5, when Paul writes the segment of instructions to husbands and wives, (wives submit, husbands love) and refers to what God declared BEFORE the fall: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
I believe that the inclusion of the one-flesh declaration from BEFORE THE FALL into the "wives submit - husbands love" instruction, God was instructing His bride in the redemptive love of the bridegroom for the wife who lovingly and willingly submits to Him.

I believe that before the fall, Adam was created first, Adam received the instruction not to eat of the tree, Eve was created as a suitable helper (complementary even).  I believe that the order in which things happened was recorded that way for a reason - the husband leads, the wife helps.

I believe that part of the curse was that no longer would a wife tend to lovingly and willingly submit to the leadership of her husband.  Evil had crept in.

I believe that after the fall the temptation would be for a husband to deal harshly with his wife, denying her the love that she desires.  Evil had crept in.
I believe that Christ offers us the opportunity:  to reflect Christ and the church.

"The mystery is profound..."

I believe that in Christ, husbands have the privilege and responsibility of loving as Christ loves the church.

I believe that in Christ, wives have the privilege and responsibility of submitting as the church submits to Christ.

I believe that the wife has been the "helper" since the creation account.  That has not changed.  Woman is still the "suitable helper".  Complementary.  Half of the one-flesh.

I believe that the whole of Scripture leads to a reading of the husband as leader.  That has not changed.

From before the fall, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

From the writing of Paul's instruction to wives and husbands, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Wives submit, husbands love.

• 2 Comments

•

Jay Adams calls "apologizing" the world's unsatisfactory substitute for forgiveness.

"uh...sorry"..."that's ok." That is apology and it's not repentance, and it's not real forgiveness.

There is another question that parallels "what is forgiveness".

What does forgiveness DO?

What makes "forgiveness", "forgiveness"?

Is it a feeling? No - Scripture says nothing about "feeling" forgiving. Scripture tells us to forgive.

Eph.4:32 tells us, "...forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."

The "as" gives us a model. Strong's gives the definition

1)according as
...a)just as, even as
...b)in proportion as, in the degree that
2)since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
3)when, after that

What does Scripture tell us about God's forgiveness of us? Does He simply sit in heaven and "emote"? No, He gives us a promise.

Isa 43:25 "I, I am he who blots outyour transgressions for my own sake,
and I will not remember your sins.

Jer 31:34b For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

If forgiveness were merely a "feeling", we could not rely on this promise.

If forgiveness were merely "forgetting", it would not be a purposeful relinquishing of the debt. I can "forget" my keys. But the Almighty Creator of the universe cannot forget anything. It is a commitment to not recall, not bring it to remembrance, not to bring it up, remind, mention or record the offense.

If I make that promise to forgive - to not bring it up again - and I do, that is breaking a promise. I went through a really rough time with my daughter a couple of years ago. That which was done is no longer between us - and the repentance/forgiveness process works.

We went through this book. I DID bring it up again and my daughter (as my sister in Christ) reminded me of the promise. I had my own repenting to do. The process works.

Forgiveness is a promise.

•

What I read in Genesis 1 and 2 is that God created male and female differently and He treats them differently and (where instruction is given to specifically men or specifically women) He many times gives them different instruction.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is not mentioned in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 we are told that Adam is given instruction independently of Eve - before she is even created. This infers that Eve was dependent on Adam for instruction. This was before the fall. The first recorded instance of a woman learning from her husband is from before the fall.

Also before the fall - God proclaimed: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Eve was created differently - out of man. Man and woman are created to be two parts of the whole.

In Ephesians, Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) writes,

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

This reference to before the fall comes at the end of one of the longest passages in Scripture instructing (specifically) husbands and wives.

In that last sentence that I quoted, the word for "respect" is φόβος - phobeō. From which we get the word "phobia" - to fear. Strong's also gives the definition: c) to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience

Does the context of the word indicate that wives are to live in "fear" of their husbands, or that they should treat them with deference?

Especially give that a related word, φόβος - phobos is used in the same chapter of Ephesians.

...submitting to one another out of reverence (φόβος ) for Christ....

The "mutual submission" clause. We need to decide whether this statement rules out what follows, or whether this statement is explained by what follows. I believe that the statement is the instruction, what follows is the application.

We see that a general instruction of "submit to one another" is here, but then there are the specific instructions to husbands and wives that are different. Husbands and wives are instructed differently.

Why?

...it refers to Christ and the church ...

•

In the creation account in Genesis 2, the animals were formed out of the ground. As was Adam.
Adam (as the animals were) was created out of the dust of the earth that God had created out of nothing...and Eve was created out of Adam. Eve is the only creature that was created in this way.
Elsewhere in Scripture we are told "he [man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." Yes, this is not a creation account, but Scripture does give us the sense of men and women being differently.

Men and women were certainly created differently, they were given different jobs and they were told different things after the fall.

When husbands and wives are given explicit instruction as husbands and wives (beyond the general instruction that we are all given), in many passages, husbands and wives are told different things, they are given different direction.

Scripture treats men and women differently.

Why? I believe that Scripture is trustworthy and tells us what God wants us to know. God wants us to know that He created men and women differently, He treats them differently and He gives them different instruction in Scripture.

In Genesis 2 we are given another creation account; a more detailed story of the creation of man and woman.

v. 15...man was put into the garden with a job to do - to work it and keep it.

v. 16 and 17, man was given the instruction to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

v. 18. God proclaims that it is not good for man to be alone and further proclaimed that He would make a helper suitable for him.
v. 19 and 20, God showed man every animal and man named them...but there was no counterpart for Adam.

v. 21. It is only AFTER Adam was created and AFTER man was given responsibility for the garden and AFTER Adam was told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and AFTER he had named all of the animals...

AFTER all of that, THEN God put Adam into a sleep and formed his wife from his rib.

and

v. 24 God tells us, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. In the jobs they are given, in the roles that they play, in the responsibilities that they have and even in the way and time they were created.

God sees us differently and I rejoice in the difference.

In the New Testament (Eph 5), we are given a parallel. After the general instructions to all members of the church, Scripture goes on with further instructions to husbands and wives.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

We are given, as men and women; as husbands and wives, the wonderful responsibility and privilege of reflecting to the world the relationship of Christ and the church. The beautiful and willing submission of the bride to her bridegroom. The caretaking love of the bridegroom for his beloved.

and God again tells us, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

This is not language that sets men and women up against each other, it does not tell us of a selfishness that demands its own rights. It is a beautiful reflection of sacrifice and submission, love and love, leaving and cleaving. One flesh.

Complementary. Not sameness, but differentness that fits together with created perfection.

• 2 Comments

•

From the outside looking in, it seems to me that Pentecostalism is very "self" centered theology.

There is a lot that is about "self".

"I claim..."

Some teach that if you pray in the right formula, use the right words, then God is honor-bound to give you what it is that you ask for. The Holy Spirit becomes something like a magic genie in a lamp. Rub the lamp the right way and you get your wish.
Some real life examples...

I was at my mom and dad's church on Sunday morning (if Mom reads, please let me know if I get this wrong.) The man who said the public prayer - in the prayer he told the congregation of a situation of a man who is sick or injured (I wasn't very clear which, but God knows).

"Lord, WE claim healing...You promised that if WE have faith you will give us what we ask for."

~~~~~

At work a woman I work with had a cold - and so did I. I took ester-C, echinacea and zinc (my usual "cocktail".) She said, "I'm CLAIMING my healing!" My cold lasted for about 10 days...hers lasted for about a week and a half.

~~~~~

I hear on a pretty regular basis, "the power of life and death is in the tongue, you know!" My reply the first time was "my future is in the hand of a sovereign God who is in control of the universe." After that I let it slip by.

~~~~~

Before I went "reformed", even before my husband died, I remember being on the way to a quiz meet with the kids and one of the church leaders was telling us on the way (in a van) how important prayer is. The reason?

Because without our prayers God is helpless to give us what we need or want. The power of God is released by our prayers.

Now I am Reformed and I find myself seeing how this warped sense of "self" has infiltrated many, many churches. I belong to a sovereign God who is in control of the universe.

The whole of TULIP is wrapped up in the power of God, not the power of "me".

• 149 Comments

•

If a Christian marriage is to reflect Christ and the church - if a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church...and if the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church...

what does that mean? What are the Biblical references for Christ (and God the Father in the Old Testament) as husband?

How do Christ the Son and God the Father relate to the church and to Israel?

Husbands, love your wives,
as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
that he might sanctify her,
having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
so that he might present the church to himself in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one ever hated his own flesh,
but nourishes and cherishes it,
just as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father
and mother and hold fast to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh."
This mystery is profound, and
I am saying that it refers to Christ
and the church. (Eph 5:25-32)

Can wives be "sanctified" by their husbands? Maybe not, but they can be saturated with Scripture. She can be loved and cherished and nourished, with Christ as his model.

For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
For the LORD has called you like a wife
deserted and grieved in spirit, (Isa. 54:5-6)

For a short time, the Husband had turned His face from His bride. She had been faithless, yet He redeemed her.

"Hallelujah!For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen,
bright and pure"— (Rev. 6-8)

The bride of the Lamb...

You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you. (Isa. 62:3-5)

You shall be called "My Delight Is In Her..."

In the New Testament, it was John the Baptist who recognized the Bridegroom:

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ,
but I have been sent before him.'
The one who has the bride is the bridegroom.
The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him,
rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.
Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:28-30)

God presented Israel with a graphic picture when He told Hosea to marry Gomer, a prostitute - knowing that she will act as prostitutes will act...and that he will bring her back.

"Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
"And in that day, declares the LORD,
you will call me 'My Husband,' and no longer will you call me 'My Baal.'
For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,
and they shall be remembered by name no more.
And I will make for them a covenant on that day
with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens,
and the creeping things of the ground.
And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land,
and I will make you lie down in safety.
And I will betroth you to me forever.
I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice,
in steadfast love and in mercy.
I will betroth you to me in faithfulness.
And you shall know the LORD. (Hosea 2:14-20)

There is a Biblical reason to see a Christian marriage as a reflection of God the Father with Israel and of Christ the Son with His bride, the church.

For I feel a divine jealousy for you,
since I betrothed you to one husband,
to present you as a pure virgin to Christ."
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning,
your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere
and pure devotion to Christ. (1 Cor. 11:2-3)

How can the church expect to be treated by her Bridegroom?

...He is her refuge, (Psa 61)

...He stands up for her (Psa 94)

...He nourishes and cherishes her (Eph 5)

...She trust in His steadfast love (Psa 52)

...He speaks tenderly to her (Hos 2)

...He is merciful and full of loving kindness (Tit 2)

...He will wipe away tears (Isa 25)

...He makes her beautiful (Isa 60)

...He carries her sorrows (Isa 53)

...He came to serve (Matt 20)

...He restores her soul, He leads her in paths of righteousness (Psa 23)

• 33 Comments

•

And a plea for logical thinking.

The bottom line (one) is:  Is Scripture sufficient?

The bottom line (two) is:  Is Scripture trustworthy?

The text for our Palm Sunday was one that I had not heard preached on Palm Sunday - Acts 14.

(3)So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.

(...)

(19)But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

When the truth is preached, people respond. Paul consistently preached the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Here is Acts 16:

(19)But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers. And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, "These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice." The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

Paul was a man who preached the truth. Every chance he got, he preached the truth. He was beaten, imprisoned, threatened with death, beaten more, imprisoned more, threatened more.

And still he preached the truth.

He knew that he was going to be martyred

2 Tim. 4:6For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Peter watched James be martyred by Herod.

Acts 12:1 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.

and Peter watched. Peter was also threatened and imprisoned.

So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison.

We read of Paul being beaten, imprisoned, beaten more, threatened with death.

We read of Peter being imprisoned after watching James be martyred.

And yet they continued to preach the gospel...even under the threat of death...and the eventually DID die for the gospel; one was beheaded, the other crucified.

And yet...these are the same men who wrote PRIVATE letters to congregations and wrote

(1 Peter 3) Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands (...) Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

and

(Col. 3:18) Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

These are men who suffered and died to preach the truth of the gospel. And yet, in private letters to congregations, we see not one specific instruction to (specifically) husbands to (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about what the authorities would say?

It would seem that men who were willing to die for the truth would be willing to write to congregations in private letters what they were really wanted to teach.

We have the same man who wrote that we ought to obey God rather than man...pandered to the culture and neglected to write that (in the face of impending martyrdom for the truth) (specifically) husbands should (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about the authorities.

These are questions that egalitarians don't appear to like...at least I've asked it a number of times and I don't recall seeing it addressed when I've asked it.

1) Why would the same Pater who said, "We must obey God rather than men!" have obeyed the culture of those same men when teaching the truth of God concerning the submission of husbands to wives?

2) Why would the same Paul who was beaten, imprisoned, and martyred for preaching truth of God in the face of governmental persecution - why would this Paul have neglected a teaching about relationships between husbands and wives out of concern for what the governmental authorities might think?
3) If we believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and are "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work"...why did "inspired" Scripture leave out this teaching (unless it isn't really a teaching)?

4) If Paul wrote what God breathed out, why was GOD pandering to the culture?

5) Paul preached Christ crucified (the equivalent of us teaching to follow a common criminal executed by hanging) - why would he have been concerned about what culture thought...when preaching such an UNcultural truth?
NOTE ON COMMENTS: stick to the specific questions or comments will be closed.

Back to the bottom lines:

(one) Is Scripture sufficient?  Or does it leave us on a "trajectory"?

(two) Is Scripture trustworthy?  Or does it leave out specific instructions in order to pander to culture?