I often hear people bemoan the fact that the church today is not growing “like it did in the 40’s and 50’s.” The question is then asked, “How can we restart the fire that once burned within our bosom?” Listen to the apostle Paul as he describes his passion in Ephesus: "And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,... Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:20, 26-27).
Far too many spiritual farmers (1 Cor. 3:9) desire fruit without the cultivation (Jer. 1:10). Some curse the soil (Luke 8:12-14), others chastise the method of the sower (Luke 8:5), while others alter the seed (Luke 8:11). The sower, seed and soil must work in harmony if the fruit is to be brought to perfection.
Needed Principles:
- An old-fashion work ethic applied to the church.
- A strong sense of ethics and morality.
- An aggressiveness with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
- Saturation with the gospel.
This method of saturation was first brought to my attention by a missionary in Wyoming of whom I learned a great deal from regarding evangelism.
91 comments:
work
do these guys know any different word then work?
thank God for places that offer true scholarship rather then the old crusty stuff time and time again
I find it interesting that someone would reintroduce the question of what is scholarly. I might remind everyone that "work" is a very biblical word (as opposed to the concepts and wording most "scholars" use).
Most of the stuff that naive Christians think is scholarly from among brethren with degrees is retread postmodern denominationalism. It's just new to them.
I may believe that additional differences exist between the church today and the church of the 40s and 50s that also affect evangelism, but the principles cited here and biblical and relevant.
I guess now I've opened myself up to be called unscholarly--no doubt by someone whose own resume consists of research devoted to a deconstructionist view of truth.
"thank God for places that offer true scholarship rather then the old crusty stuff time and time again"
Biblically speaking, wouldn't the best scholarship be that which would take us back to what Jesus and his Apostles started teaching almost 2,000 years ago, i.e. the old crusty stuff? If it's not an old Gospel, then it's a different Gospel, and it's condemned in Galatians 1.
Also, what will young people be saying about your "scholarship" 50 years from now? Will it be "old and crusty" and in need of a change? The truth that will set us free does not change over time.
When I was in college, I studied authors that dated back to the founding of Rome. I guess OU and the rest of the academic world don't realize that old = stupid.
Acts 17:21
For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.
Not much has changed, huh?
Oklahoma Christian does not want any of you to discuss them at any time on this blog. To further engage in what has been, by request, denied by them is to place yourselves in sin.
OC Faculty member
Here is academia in its truest from: "Do what we say or you are in sin!"
Do you mean 'denied' in the sense of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?
A denial of something, when the facts say otherwise, is a lie.
"By their fruits ye shall know them" (Mt. 7:20).
Quite often in the NT the term "work" is a synonym to "obedience."
The NT is only opposed to works when they are works of the law by which one is seeking to be justified. Or if one is trying to seek justification through works of human merit (ie, man's ideas).
Biblical obedience is essential.
The gospel is God's power to save. But that gospel must be preached. Some plant, some water, but God gives the increase.
If we want growth, then let's do it His way. And guess what!! That takes a lot of work.
There is absolutely nothing you can do to earn or even receive your salvation. All men are sinful at conception and are born rank sinners. Thats why at two toddlers scream and throw fits. Children at four and five curse. Children at seven and eight steal and lie to their parents. By fourteen and fifteen most all teenagers are having sex. Don't tell me we are not shapen and born in sin. Sinners reproduce sinners. Unless the Holy Spirit decides to redeem you, you have absolutely no hope whatsoever.
You are correct on the music question though!
Primitive Baptist
"Children at four and five curse."
Are children born knowing these words or do they have to learn them from someone else?
Just a thought
"Sinners reproduce sinners."
So do saints reproduce saints? If you've been "changed" by the Holy Ghost, and redeemed by the blood of Christ, wouldn't there no longer be any sin to pass down to your children? Or does Christ's blood not wash you completely?
My question to Primitive Baptist is a simple one, "why bother?"
Primitive Baptist (PB) said:
There is absolutely nothing you can do to earn or even receive your salvation.
Bible: "He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him."
PB: All men are sinful at conception and are born rank sinners.
Bible: see Ezekiel 18
NOTE: God is the Father of our spirits. How can we be born sinners?
PB: Thats why at two toddlers scream and throw fits.
NOT...At least for babies it is their only form of communication to let anyone know that they are in pain, hungry, thirsty, wet, dirty, etc.
If you really believe in hereditary depravity, then why don't you sprinkle babies the Catholics, etc.?
PB: Children at four and five curse. Children at seven and eight steal and lie to their parents. By fourteen and fifteen most all teenagers are having sex.
All of these are LEARNED behaviors from their environment. I believe you also stretch the truth, esp. about sex.
God has placed parents in the role of training and discipline of children. So if children are doing all these things it is because the parents are failing at the job.
PB: Don't tell me we are not shapen and born in sin.
How about you presenting solid biblical evidence for the assertion that they are.
PB: Sinners reproduce sinners.
Bible: God is the Father of our spirits. We get our physical side from human parents.
PB: Unless the Holy Spirit decides to redeem you, you have absolutely no hope whatsoever.
1. God wants all men to be saved.
2. Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.
3. The one who hears and obeys the gospel will be saved.
Redemption is available to all who WILL come to God on His terms.
The Holy Spirit convicts, converts, and sanctifies men only through the Word.
Has anyone ever noticed the inconsistency of those who claim hereditary depravity?
If all people are born sinners and that explains why they sin, then why insists that homosexuality is a learned behavior and not an inborn drive.
If homosexuality is a particular persons sin nature, then isn't he at least partly correct in saying that God made him that way?
This is kind of like the asking which came first...the chicken or the egg.
If you are a creationist then you know it was the chicken.
Well a person is not a liar unless he lies.
A person is not a sinner until he sins.
The Holy Spirit draws apart from the word as taught within the Holy Book.
The word *ONLY* makes your doctrine false.
The other responses are so shallow I will not respond.
Primitive Baptist
Primitive Baptist:
"The other responses are so shallow I will not respond."
Rick here:
Sounds so convenient, does it? My question still stands, "why bother?" This simple question cannot be answered by a Primitive Baptist because he thinks that there is absolutely nothing that a man can do to be saved - it takes a "zapping" of the Holy Spirit. If I don't get "zapped" then I'm out.
Do you know anyone in the OKC area that is interested in a public discussion on this matter? It should be an easy discussion seeing we are so shallow.
You misrepresent our doctrine.
Primitive Baptist
If the pior answers are so shallow, then they should be rather easy to answer.
It is rather telling that you merely dismiss them. This is especially noteworthy that you made assertions without evidence. But you were answered with both scripture and sound reason.
I was not aware that the Primitive Baptists believed in modern day miracles.
You do realize that any direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon an individual is by nature... miraculous.
The HS inspired the apostles and other prophets. The scriptures are their record. The HS convicts, coverts, and sanctifies the individual through the Word.
So far as "misrepresentation"... please clarify.
Verses that a Primitive Baptist cannot believe:
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
If God desires it, and He is in control of it, but it doesn't happen, then He apparently cannot do it, in which case He cannot be God.
"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."
Not everyone will be saved (Mt. 7:13-14), yet Jesus died for everyone. If Jesus died for all, and the only thing necessary for salvation is what God does, and since not all will be saved, then you have Jesus as an ineffective propitiation, which once again attacks His character and Deity.
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).
God wants all men to come to repentance. If this is up to God, and God wants it, then what exactly is keeping men from doing it? It is either because it is possible for men to defy God of their own free will because this is how God made us or God does not have the power to deliver salvation to all that He would like to see saved, in which case, He is no God at all.
Primitive Baptist doctrine contradicts all three of these scriptures. And don't claim I misrepresented the doctrine, I would ask people to check the Holy Spirit's words I have quoted against what you have posted above.
Primitive Baptist
First, "The other responses are so shallow I will not respond." Second, "You misrepresent our doctrine." Wow, what's next maybe... an answer, waiting...
The direct influence of the Holy Spirit is not miraculous it is however, beyond the natural. You Campbellites "assume' far too much to arrive at your positions which are usually based upon circular reasoning and human tradition.
There are many levels taught in Scripture of God's influenece. Salvation was and is BEYOND the natural order of God's influence.
Planning of God --- Above the natural
Virgin birth---Miracle
Perfect Life---Certainly not natural
Ressurection-- Don't be afraid of the "miracle" here boys!
Ascension--Miracle, right?
His Second Coming---- Wow, another miracle.
Miracle (Creation) in the beginning. Miracles in all the Biblical time periods. Miracles of Christ. Miracles of the apostles. Miracles in the future (second coming).
Don't be alarmed at the irrestible influence of the Holy Spirit. That is why the Bible says no man cometh to the Father execpt He draw him".
Be careful boys, you might back yourself into a corner.
TRUE OR FALSE...
Miracles did exist and will in the future at the Second Coming exist.
Is there an honest Campbellite preacher?
Primitive Baptist
PB,
Your use of the term "Cambellite" is insulting and unfounded.
We are disciples of Jesus Christ who wear the name Christian only.
Q: How can the direct operation upon an individual by a Supernatural Being not be miraculous??
And could you enlighten us on what assumptions we are supposed to be operating on?
Your condescension is unbecoming a reasonable person.
No one here is denying the historicity of the biblical miracles.
I have a question for the reflections staff to answer. How can you say that Jesus is God when the Bible clearly teaches he was not?
Please give proof.
Matthew
Jesus IS God
John 1:1, 14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 5:17-18
17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
John 10:33
The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Colossians 2:9
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
Hebrews 1:8
But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You know, you've gotta love people who make a challenge in the form of begging the question.
Also, anyone who believes that the reasoning given above is circular should feel free to prove it (or should I say, is obligated to prove it).
Brother disciple has yet to answer my questions (esp. true false).
The reason is because he is a liar. The Campbellite church which he is a member of is a radical overbearing group of idiots who for the most part are dishonest. They prey on the weak and are Pharisees below the surface. As long as the discussion is heated from their end everything is ok and they are defending the truth. When someone like myself who has repeatedly shut down these little men who want to be big men they automatically cow down like a little puppy. Shame on you.
Your doctrine stinks.If the direct operation of the Holy Spirit is a miracle (always) then miracles still exist everytime the Holy Ghost chooses an individual to be His. Notice the dishonest preacher from the Campbellite church did not deal with the verse about no man cometh to the Father except he is drawn !!!
I am going to be your worst nightmare on this blog. Get ready for disputes just like Paul had with the Pharisees (Campbellites in todays world). I will refute everyone of your little lies.
Primitive Baptist
I hope the Holy Ghost decides to draw a few of you. There is no way you can come out of this mess on your own.
" I will refute everyone of your little lies."
"The other responses are so shallow I will not respond."
Which is it going to be?
Calvinism has many problems, namely that it denigrates the nature of God, and makes the devil more powerful than the Christ. That's why I asked the question about saints producing untainted children. Calvinism would have you believe that the devil corrupted man so throughly by the sin of Adam that every man henceforth carries that sin on his shoulders, a sin that Christ cannot remove, because even those "elect" who have been drawn and cleansed carry that sin within them to pass down to their children. If Christ removes that sin from a person when he becomes a Christian, then his children could not inherit it, and if Christ does not remove this sin, then the parents are not really saved at all.
I would also like a response to my question about children who curse - you maintain that this is evidence of inborn depravity, but how do they get those words in their vocabulary if it's not a learned behavior?
If these questions are too shallow for you, why don't you just explain to us how the Gospel does not have the power to save men?
To those that believe in the direct operation of the HS or any tenate of Calvinism may I encourage to read T.W. Brents book entitled, "The Gospel Plan of Salvation"? I, personaly, have found it an encouraging book not only to read, but to study. Brents not only is exhostive but giving both the simple and complex argument from both sides of the issue. Thank you.
I'm not sure that Anonymous Primitive Baptist realizes it, but his entire diatribe and attack had no Bible in it whatsoever, no love that I could see, and a whole lot of ignorance to put on display. Therefore, I welcome him to continue posting here. Maybe some other Primitive Baptists will see his failure to address the scriptures and his attempt to bolster the poverty of his opinion by attacking for what they are. If so, they will be open to the truth.
I've seen many a person hiding behind a computer make similar comments. They will talk about logic while making illogical arguments and claim to make a scriptural argument without bringing up a single scripture. They are deceiving themselves if they really think people take them seriously.
Hey PB...wake up...read,
I did answer your question about biblical miracles.
I would suggest that you stop with the accusations and name calling. Evil surmising is a sin too.
If you are addressing me in this way, I expect/demand that you give evidence of dishonesty and/or lying.
Q: How do "idiots" prey on the weak?
No one here is shut down or acting like a puppy.
If you are so "good" at defeating our position, then I am sure someone here would be more than willing to open public debate.
About your challenge with the verse which states "no one comes to me except the Father draw him."
1. I would never deny the truth of this statement.
2. You however, ASSUME the means by which it is accomplished... the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.
3. You have the burden of proving this assertion/assumption.
4. I owe you no explanation on this until you have proven your case.
You say our doctrine "stinks". You might want to take the following into account:
"To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life." (2 Cor. 2:16, NKJV)
PB wrote:
I am going to be your worst nightmare on this blog. Get ready for disputes just like Paul had with the Pharisees (Campbellites in todays world). I will refute everyone of your little lies.
Wow! Is anyone shaking in their shoes yet? LOL
PB also wrote:
I hope the Holy Ghost decides to draw a few of you.
Hmm! Did I miss something? I thought Calvinism taught that the elect were chosen by the Father... from the foundation of the world.
Since when does the Holy Spirit decide these things?
PB said:
The Campbellite church which he is a member of is a radical overbearing group of idiots who for the most part are dishonest.
1. Cambellite church... a prejudicial expression. No such organization exists.
2. Radical overbearing group of idiots... has he ever been there?
About 80% of the adults in my home congregation are college graduates. 10% of these have graduate degrees or hours.
Several are engineers, others are educators, still others are business people.
We have students from 6 different colleges/universities.
I don't think we can call these folks idiots.
Bearing false witness is a sin, so stop saying they are dishonest.
Hopefully this is not the best and brightest that the primitive baptists have to offer.
On the other hand this may be why they call themselves primitive?
My question is sixfold.
1. Does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 apply only to the Lord's day assembly or does it apply to all spiritual settings (public and private) ie, Bible class, prayers at home, youth deov's, etc.?
2. Does 1 Corinthians 14:34 apply today or was that only in the realm of the miraculous? (Guy N. Woods affirmed that).
3. Is the silence mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12 the same silence?
4. How do we know that the silence was not a cultural arguement much like the covering of the head in 1 Corinthians 11?
5. What does the phrase "usurp authority" in 1 Timothy 2:12 mean?
6. What does "as also saith the law" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 mean? The Old Testament, the law of authority, the law of Christ, the law of headship and roles between a man and a woman, etc?
I do not mean to be difficult but I have so many questions relating to this subject and I want to make sure I am right in my beliefs.
Please help.
Sincere seeker.
I have another question on a different subject altogether.
Why in Acts 15 did the brethren send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem (mainly Paul because he was an apostle) unto the "apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15:2) if Pual already was an apostle?
Why were the elders included in such a meeting?
Why were the apostles arguing alongside the elders about this matter if all the apostles were equally guided into all truth?
I do not mean this as a proof against the Bible's holiness just as an honest question. I know there must be an answer.
SS
Ok, I promise this is the last question.
Preachers often mention verses like 2 Cor 5:10 and others to scare the crowd a little. Although fear is a Biblical concept along with the terror of the Lord, it seems to me they somewhat take it out of context when they act as if everyone evil deed will come up at the Day of Judgment against them and they will have to give an actual account of every single thing they have done wrong. If they are forgiven (members of the Lord's church who are walking in the light 1 John 1:7) what makes them think they will have to answer for any of those sins?
In other words 2 Cor 5:10 is overpowered by 1 John 1:7 or were all headed for hell.
SS
WOW. I hope Rick doesn't have any plans for about a week. Ha. Great questions and I know we will have a good discussion.
Let me add a spin to the comments and questions on the women thing.
What does the word man mean in that text? Isn't it true that sometimes man or men is general for humanity but sometimes specific for the male race? What about this though, if it does refer to a male is it all males? Christian and Non- Christians? What about this? At what age does the boy become a "man"? Maturity level, age of 12 (like Jesus in Luke 2), at marriage, at sexual relations, at leaving father and mother (Gen 2), or at baptism? The baptism makes some sense and would explain the Christian Non- Christian question possibly. these maybe dumb questions but lets atleast keep Rick and the staff hoppoing.
LOL
mark
I do know the answer to one question
Does 1 Cor 14:34 apply today.
YES !! Just b/c it was during the age of miracles proves nothing. Every church had the working of miracles b/c the written word wasnt there in its entirety. If they had to be silent when there were miracles why wouldnt they have to be now? What has changed that would alter the law? Besides 1 Tim 2 ties it back to the "beginning" rather than a cultural thing. Am i right on this?
Women are more able to be deceived as well.
last post by Mark too
Silence means not one single peep out of the woman.
OKC, Ok
SS,
There is a reason that the problem with the Judaizing teachers had to go back to Jerusalem and the elders of the church.
These teachers were from that congregation. They were acting as though they had been commissioned to do what they were doing.
If a congregation was having problems with a missionary how came from another congregation they would have to take the problem back to his elders.
Without doing so he might continue teaching his error elsewhere.
The use of "silence" in 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 is different.
1 Cor. means absolutely no utterance.
1 Tim. 2 refers more to demeanor as quietness.
The context of 1 Cor. 14 is definitely miraculous. There are actually 3 uses of silence in this text. Tongue speakers are to be absolutely silent when there is no one to interpret. The prophets are to take turns and be absolutely silent while another is speaking. And with regard to judging prophecies the women are to be absolutely silent esp. in regard to their own husbands. They can inquire of them at home privately.
The silence of 1 Tim. 2 is rooted in creation and the fall. It is not based on current culture.
1. Order of creation -- man was created first.
2. Order of the fall -- woman was deceived and disobeyed first.
These two truths are factual and cannot be changed, therefore the application to the role of women cannot change.
The first and most obvious application of this is when the church is together. The context mentions how one is to behave in the house of God which is the church of the living God.
It can get really squirrely trying to apply this reasonably when one takes it out of that setting.
I know a couple of men who believe that women have to be absolutely silent even in their own homes if a conversation happens to turn religious in nature.
Mark,
Your question about when does a male become a man is very important.
I hope no one really believes that baptism makes a 10 year old a man.
If it does, are we going to give them equal say in business meetings? Are their parents still responsible for them? The questions could be multiplied easily.
We are told by Paul that the things written aforetime are for our learning.
I believe we need to research the OT and God's view on when He viewed a male as a fully accountable person to Him.
At age 12 Jesus was exhibiting great wisdom and understanding, but nowhere is this equated in scripture with independent manhood.
The text states that He was subject to His parents and grew in wisdom, and stature, and in favor with God and man. It is obvious that He had not "arrived."
I would encourage you to look up the many and diverse references to the age of 20; you will find it enlightening.
The age is not 20 !!
The age is 12 when Jesus became a man.
OC student
(Even I KNOW that)
By the way, I think the baby dedication thing that is kinda new like the Church in Perkins, Ok does is great. That way if they do become a "man" before we think they do they have already been consecrated to the Lord.
Answer me this OC Student, why does Luke by inspiration then refer to Jesus as "the child"?
Luke 2:40, 43
I have been away from the blog so I will get to the questions as soon as work allows.
Rick, it also says that Christ was subject to his parents after they had returned home, which illustrates the same point.
"By the way, I think the baby dedication thing that is kinda new like the Church in Perkins, Ok does is great. That way if they do become a "man" before we think they do they have already been consecrated to the Lord."
This is not new - the Catholics have been doing it for years, but they use water and call it baptism. I'm not sure what they think is going on here, and I don't think those who practice know themselves - otherwise they'd have a more specific term than "baby dedication thing." All I know is that it's not in the Bible. The only thing I can think of that's even close is Samuel in the Old Testament, but I don't think these parents are giving their kids to the preacher to raise, so that's out. Anyway, I don't think I ever got "dedicated," and I have already become a man, so mabey OC student could elaborate on what part of the Gospel I've forever missed out on?
a "child" in verse 43
a "son" in verse 48
Jesus "increased" verse 52
baby
child
man
child + increase = man
need I say more?
OC student
we gotcha on this one
dude, stop claiming victory on topics in which you've made absolutely no logical or scriptural argument.
OC Student,
What are you trying to prove?
Of course given enough time in his increase the boy would become a man, duh!
But at the age of twelve the text (ASV) calls him a boy. His mother called him "son". The use of son here describes his gender and relationship to her, but nothing more about his maturity.
It is also obvious that you do NOT know that it is not 20.
Baby dedications are totally without NT authority. If they, as you imply, give a sense of consecration to the person without his/her knowledge or consent then it is useless.
Under the NT one must obey from the heart that form of doctrine that has been delivered.
This idea of baby dedications has about as much efficacy as the proxy baptisms in Utah.
I could not agree more!
J Dean from OKC, OK has put the OC student in his or her place. If this is the type of "scholarship" that is present at our schools of higher learning I want to be dumb!
As we properly analyze Luke 2 we come away with the conclusion that at age 12 Jesus was considered a "child" not a man.
Something to think about... If it takes baptism to make a boy a man, was Jesus a boy until 30? Baptism has nothing to do with us becoming "men".
However, I have long stated that some in the church of Christ push baptism too much on our "children". Notice the text in Acts 8:12...."...they were baptized, both men and women".
Men were not made by baptism. The transition that took place was sinful men becoming saints at the watery grave.
Brant Stubblefield
Q&A
1. Does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 apply only to the Lord's day assembly or does it apply to all spiritual settings (public and private) ie, Bible class, prayers at home, youth deov's, etc.?
Rick here... It applies to all settings period.
Q&A
2. Does 1 Corinthians 14:34 apply today or was that only in the realm of the miraculous? (Guy N. Woods affirmed that).
Rick here... Hold on to your hats gentlemen, but Guy N. Woods, whom I dearly respect, was wrong and for the same reason that is mentioned above. What does a miraculous context have to do with application? Does Acts 2:38 apply? Remember it was in the realm of the miraculous.
Q&A
3. Is the silence mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12 the same silence?
Rick here... This was answered by bro. disciple correctly. They are two different words the first referring to complete silence the second to demeanor.
Q&A
4. How do we know that the silence was not a cultural arguement much like the covering of the head in 1 Corinthians 11?
Rick here... Because of the following passages: 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 1 Timothy 2:13-14.
Q&A
5. What does the phrase "usurp authority" in 1 Timothy 2:12 mean?
Rick here... The word means “to take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.” Today we tend to use the word “usurp” in the sense of by force, thus “to seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal author.” The word here simply means to exercise authority that does not rightfully belong to you.
Q&A
6. What does "as also saith the law" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 mean? The Old Testament, the law of authority, the law of Christ, the law of headship and roles between a man and a woman, etc?
Rick here... I believe it refers to the law of Moses.
Q&A
Why in Acts 15 did the brethren send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem (mainly Paul because he was an apostle) unto the "apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15:2) if Pual already was an apostle?
Rick here... Paul did not go up to Jerusalem to find the answer but to declare what God had done (v. 12).
Why were the elders included in such a meeting?
Rick here... Why not include them, who better to include. This does not mean that they had a vote but needed to be included for at least two reasons (1) to hear the accusations and (2) to hear the conclusion of the Holy Spirit on the matter. At the mouth of two of three witnesses let all things be confirmed.
Why were the apostles arguing alongside the elders about this matter if all the apostles were equally guided into all truth?
Rick here... “And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:23). The text does not say that the apostles were arguing or disputing among them what it says is that there had been much disputing. In other words after certain of the sect of the Pharisees had complained, the Holy Spirit settled the matter.
I hope that this helps.
Rick wrote:
Q&A
1. Does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 apply only to the Lord's day assembly or does it apply to all spiritual settings (public and private) ie, Bible class, prayers at home, youth deov's, etc.?
Rick here... It applies to all settings period.
Just for the sake of clarification...
Do you affirm or deny that a Christian woman can evangelize a non-Christian man?
If you affirm, would you agree that this would limit the verse in question to how Christian women relate to Christian men?
"If you affirm, would you agree that this would limit the verse in question to how Christian women relate to Christian men?"
Are you affirming that a woman cannot usurp authority over a Christian man, but *can* usurp authority over a non Christian man? Since Paul's explanation draws from creation itself and the fall of man, events in which God defined the roles of the sexes and which preceded Christianity by thousands of years, how can you say that this relates exclusively to Christian relationships?
You are assuming that you cannot tell someone about Christ without placing yourself in authority over them.
1 Tim 2:8-15 is only referring to the public worship of the church.
1 Cor 14:35 " And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands AT HOME: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in THE CHURCH (worship hour).
1 Tim 2:11 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjecton"
The word "silence" itself might have a slight variance BUT the idea is that the silence must be in the church NOT other places. By church I refer to the assembly or public worship of the church NOT home.
Reason:
The law does not allow a woman to asurp authority over a man in the public arena of the church. This includes leadership capacities (elder, deacon, preacher, etc) and the leading of the worship. This would not be submissive to the Lord, or the unbelievers.
To place 1 Timothy 2 in all palces is to twist the Scripture so far it breaks. Since most of you ar not comsistent in your application of 1 Timonty 2 when you try and force it to apply across the board that tells me it is wrong probably.
Verses 13-14-15 go back to creation-not to prove that 11 and 12 make "silence" apply outside the church, but to prove WHY the "silence" in then assembly and public leadership of God's people ie (Moses the lawgiver) has always REQUIRED male leadership.
Nathan
TN
I have a question (maybe dumb to some)
why do most preachers say the holy hands in vs 8 is a figure of speech reflectiing an attitude of conduct, while the silence mentioned in vs 11-12 are literal?
Me again-
men in vs1 of First Tim ?
male or mankind?
men in vs 4 male or mankind?
men in vs 5 male or mankind?
men in vs 8 male or mankind?
How does one the difference for sure?
May a lady teach a class where a seven year old boy has obeyed the gospel?
Doesn't this usurp his authority?
"May a lady teach a class where a seven year old boy has obeyed the gospel?"
It's a little off the subject, but don't you think that's WAY too young??!!
I hope that no one here would suggest that all women are under the authority all men in all things at all times.
The texts at issue (1 Cor. 14, 1 Tim. 2) pertain to things spiritual in the assembly.
Relationally, beyond the assembly, females are under the authority of their fathers while still living under their roof. But they are under the authority of their husbands once they marry.
I don't think that anyone here would suggest that these females are under the "spiritual" authority of these men if they are unbelievers.
One who is in the position of the being a teacher inherently carries to it a level of authority. That authority does not extend beyond that realm.
Women, as well as others, are under the spiritual authority of the men in general and elders in particular in their local church.
How far are we willing to take the idea that men have authority over women spiritually even if those men are unbelievers? Can such men dictate what happens in a congregation that is made up of women and children? Can they teach whatever they want, do with the money whatever they want, use the building for whatever activity they want? This is not far fetched I have known of at least two congregations that had no local Christian men to lead.
Baptizing a 7 yr. old is not much different than "baptizing" an infant.
Advanced intellect and/or loss of innocence do not mean that a child is truly mature enough, let alone accountable before God as a sinner, to need salvation.
man - generic of all mankind
and
man - male gender in particular
are distinct in the original languages.
Many times one can discern this even in English by the context. If the term is contextually contrasted to or in company with the term woman, then you can be fairly sure it is the male use of man.
PS... Some more modern speech versions use "one" or "person", etc. when the term man is generic. You can compare translations when in doubt to determine such.
Might I suggest that the issues raised her in regard to women take in a number of questions that must be treated separately in order to pull together a proper understanding. For example, the first question relates to the extent of applying 1 Timothy 2 in life as opposed to the assembly, but some will see this as contradictory unless "usurping" is properly defined. People have already brought up these issues and pointed them out, but I'm not sure everyone understands how they affect one another.
Kevin, well said...
I will get to some of the questions later but you can make the simple distinctions in man (male) and man (mankind) by looking up the verses in Strongs, it is a great assist to any library.
One of the classes that I teach in How to Study the Bible is "Bible Tools"
So according to J Dean one has to know the Greek to be accurate on the role of women. I am so frustrated.
Nathan
TN
No. You don't have to know Greek, but in some cases (not just on this subject) knowing how to use the proper tools is important, which is why Rick mentioned "tools" in his post.
Bible study takes effort. One of the reasons Christ taught in parables was to distinguish between those who were observers and those who were truly interested. When truth really matters to us, we will make the effort to learn the skills necessary to ascertain that truth.
I'm sure someone here can provide you with access to the guidance you want. ; )
Kevin-
Dont take this wrong, but if I thought it took knowing the Greek to go to heaven Id just give up. Thats what you all are basicaly saying. Need to understand 1 Tim 2 to go to heaven? Yes. Need to know when men is specific to understnad the text? Yes. How do I know? Gree!
Nathan
GREEK !
Paying attention to context and comparing mulitple versions will answer a lot of questions including the textual use of man... is it male only or mankind in general?
"Dont take this wrong, but if I thought it took knowing the Greek to go to heaven Id just give up."
Nobody is saying that you have to learn Greek. All that's been said is that the Greek is helpful - how can you argue with that? I don't know Greek either, but anybody who can use a dictionary can look up the meaning of a word in Strongs or Thayer.
In reference to your comment about "just giving up" if learning a language was necessary, I would point out that people learn the basics of a language in a few months - yet a Christian's obligation to study the word lasts a lifetime. If don't take your studies in an English version as seriously as someone taking Rosetta Stone on the internet, I would suggest that you aren't being as diligent as you ought. Would you really willingly go to hell rather than learn another language? I sure wouldn't, but I'm glad it's not necessary all the same.
Nathan,
I had a Greek teacher tell me one time, "Son, you don't have to know Greek to go to heaven, but somebody had to know Greek for anyone of us to go to heaven."
By the way, you do not have to know Greek to use "Strongs" as a study tool. It is a Concordance that works on a numbering system.
Call Christian Family Bookstore (800) 782.8175 and speak with Mark or Tucker Williams.
Since an illegal alien has to return home (repentance) to become a Christian, why doesn't a person who files bankruptcy have to pay their medical bills, credit cards, etc back (repentance demand restitution).
We teach this with the MDR issue and with the illegal Mexicans who sneak over.
Bankruptcy is seldom mentioned.
Is it the same?
Why/why not?
Terry Landover
Terry,
Bankruptcy and illegal aliens are not equal discussions because one is a legal doctrine and the other is illegal by definition.
Terry wrote:
Since an illegal alien has to return home (repentance) to become a Christian, why doesn't a person who files bankruptcy have to pay their medical bills, credit cards, etc back (repentance demand restitution).
We teach this with the MDR issue and with the illegal Mexicans who sneak over.
Bankruptcy is seldom mentioned.
Is it the same?
Why/why not?
The concept of restitution is clearly taught in the OT but only on very specific cases/issues.
Restitution dealt with loss of property by theft or destruction.
Divorce and remarriage is not loss of property. Nowhere in the scriptures (OT or NT) is restitution ever even remotely taught as a means of "correcting" unfortunate situations as these.
So far as bankruptcy is concerned; the principle is based on the OT concept of the 7 year forgiving of debts and the 50 year jubilee return of land to the original family.
Being bankrupt and filing bankruptcy are not always the same. It it not immoral in the sense of stealing if a person has unforseen and unfortunate disasters occurring in his life. Even our law recognizes this difference.
In the USA we have insurance on almost everything to protect ourselves. Business who extend credit also do so.
When a bankruptcy goes before a judge, every creditor has a right to appear and to appeal the conditions. Unless there is malicious and wilful dodging of a debt most do not dispute it.
Our laws also were developed in contrast to the abusive debtors prisons left behind in Europe when our country was founded.
It is arguably a good idea if one can pay back those debts. Unfortunately, their present cost of living prevents many from being able to do so. Ultimately those debts have been forgiven albeit by legal recourse.
Therefore if I borrow 10,000.00 from Rick and I overextend myself with no "malicious" behavior attatched and then I file bankruptcy because I "cannot" repay thats ok?
I thought God's law was higher than mans law? I thought we had to "owe no man nothinig "?
What about the covenant or contract I entered into with Rick?
I do not agree at all. You guys are really wrong on this one.
According to your doctrine, (Rick and a friend) the illegal would not have to go home if he sought amnesty from the government because of "certain situations".
You all might be leaning towards situational ethics on the bankruptcy thing. I forwarded this blogsite (my first time to be on) to a brotherhood school of preaching for review. It may take a few days for their decision to come back.
"According to your doctrine, (Rick and a friend) the illegal would not have to go home if he sought amnesty from the government because of "certain situations"."
If he had amnesty, he wouldn't be an illegal. The reason illegals should go home is because they are breaking the law by being here, and someone here legally would not (obviously) be doing so.
"Therefore if I borrow 10,000.00 from Rick and I overextend myself with no "malicious" behavior attatched and then I file bankruptcy because I "cannot" repay thats ok?"
I like the way you put cannot in quotes. If you can't pay, you can't pay - what do you want a Christian to do, rob a bank? Like it or not, there are situations in which it is impossible to pay back that which is owed. It's wrong to overextend yourself intentionally (maliciously), but if it is done unintentionally, how can you pay a debt that is impossible to pay?
IF SITUATION ALLOWS:
Jeff says: Paul was wrong. Owe no man anything is trumped by your overextension as long as intent was not malicious.
Sounds similiar to Dave Miller's INTENT doctrine on the MDR issue.
Jeff- NO, you may not rob a bank but you may sell every last possesion you have and work tirelessly to repay every penny. Thats what a CHRISTIAN would do, right?!@#$%^&*(
Natahn
"Jeff- NO, you may not rob a bank but you may sell every last possesion you have and work tirelessly to repay every penny. Thats what a CHRISTIAN would do, right?!@#$%^&*(
Natahn"
I didn't say anything about not trying to repay, did I? I just said that there are times when you *can't*. If you want to argue with that, then turn to Luke 7:42 and argue with the Lord.
By the way, a CHRISTIAN shouldn't curse either - or use symbols that designate such.
The scripture about "owe no man anything" is very important.
That is one of those texts which should be taught to young people early before the try to buy things on credit.
It is the very access to and use of easy credit that gets many people into financial trouble.
Fiancial foolishness stresses many marriages. It robs people of freedom to make other choices for their money. It also robs potential for good in the kingdom by reduced giving. It can give a black eye to a persons character.
Credit is most wisely used when purchasing things that appreciate in value. Buying a couple of twenty dollar meals and not paying the balance can turn those into hundred dollar meals over time, long after they have been processed at the sewage plant.
However, job loss, medical emergencies, etc. can hurt people significantly.
Again if one is not paying back easy credit, he can more easily save for such unforseen things. He should have all of his deductibles saved; insurance premiums budgeted; hefty emergency fund to keep Murphy at bay.
Recommended reading:
Dave Ramsey's "Total Money Makeover"
Be careful not to jump to conclusions about what others are saying. For example, I have not argued that bankruptcy is biblical only that there is a difference between the bankruptcy and illegals from a legal standpoint.
See post: January 25, 2008 11:56 AM
"Bankruptcy and illegal aliens are not equal discussions because one is a legal doctrine and the other is illegal by definition."
I will be absent most of today but will post later this evening on the subject of bankrupacy.
"I wait in anticipation upon our review by those who know?"
Two questions about bankruptcy:
(1) Anonymous wrote... “I thought God's law was higher than mans law? I thought we had to "owe no man nothinig "?”
(2) Anonymous wrote... “What about the covenant or contract I entered into with Rick?”
Rick here... First, God’s law is higher than man’s law but you have not demonstrated a conflict in your inquiry, for herein the law relinquishes the debt. You must prove that the law has no right to relinquish the debt. Second, with every contract entered into in today’s world there is an underlying understanding that one party may file for bankruptcy and thus dissolve the debt. Therefore every contract presupposes the possibility of bankruptcy. If a man therefore files for bankruptcy, he is within his contractual rights.
I would say at this point that although usually unwise and oftentimes sinful it is permissible under certain circumstances.
The church of Christ will start growing again when we get back to speaking the truth IN LOVE. Venomous tirades like the one from Brandt and Rick against the Quail Springs church only serve to confirm many outsiders' view of religion as being full of condemning zealots who would rather show how much they know than how much they care.
There is a much better way, a much more effective way to approach those who we believe to be in error. As a life long, devoted member of the CoC, I would immediately leave any congregation that would say such ugly, hateful things about any one, especially a group who is seeking to serve God but who interprets a point of doctrine differently than me.
The type of spiritual terrorism exhibited in the Q.S. indictment divides and drives away those who are seeking a better way. Being right on a topic does not empower one to be vile and nasty. I salute the passion but I'm grieved by the attitude.
You might be a little off the mark with your comments hid way down here 4Him. Try one of the post above where the real discussion is going on.
Post a Comment