No Creed But Christ - Restoration MovementThe forum for members of the restoration movement including Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, and Independent Christian Churches.
What does the Bible really say about women preachers/ministers/evangelists? Plenty. There shouldn't be any preaching from the pulpit at all. Only men should do that because Paul said through God by the Holy Spirit in 1 Timothy 2:12 that "I do not allow them (women) to teach (preach) or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet." It is okay if a woman is supervisor, chairman, president or CEO of a company/corporation, principal, doctor, governor, Congresswoman, delegate, senator, Secretary of State (or any Secretary), queen, princess, prime minister, or even President of The United States. But she is not allowed to preach God's Word in the church or anywhere. She is also not allowed to be an elder (pastor) or a deacon either. It is entirely unscriptual. She can be a Sunday school teacher as long she doesn't teach men. She can teach other women and children as well. Feel free to leave comments...I'll have more later, Lord willing.
Really,...????
Women are not allowed to preached from the pulpit..?????
ARMAGEDDON, THE BATTLE
by Dr. Hoyt W. Allen, Jr. executive director of KYOWVA Evangelistic Association in Ironton, OH www.kyowva.com
Premillennialism is the doctrine that Christ must return to the earth before He begins His 1,000 year reign in Jerusalem. Dispensationalism teaches that all of history is divided into seven ages (dispensations), which supposedly correspond to the days of the creation week -- the seventh "age" of which is the alleged "millennial" reign of Jesus. Almsot every time there is a disturbance in the Middle East, voices of hysteria assert that the "Battle of Armageddon" is at hand.
The dispensationalists are constantly adjusting their "political" intrepretations of those events that are supoosed to be foreruuners to "Armageddon". A recent example was seen in a revised version of John F. Walvoord's book Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis. For some years, Walvoord was an instructor of Systematic Theology at the Dallas Theological Seminary. The promotion for Walvoord's book asserted that the world stage was set for a showdown in the Middle East. The professor argued that the conflict in the Persian Gulf, during the administration of President Bush, Sr. (George H. W. Bush), fulfiiled conditions "exactly as the Bible anticipates in its prophecies of the end of time." Error: Then after the fall of the Soviet Union, these books were dumped on the market at a fraction of the original price. It is little wonder; Russia was supposed to be one of the super powers in the Armageddon conflict. The entire millennial scheme is without merit.
A number of premillennial writers have identified Iraq with biblical prophecies regarding Babylon. They claim, therefore, that when the ancient prophets wrote regarding "Babylon", in many instances they were speaking of Modern Iraq. Does the Bible speak of the "battle of Armageddon"? If so, what is it? And when is it supposed to occur? Armageddon (literally, Har-Magedon) is specifically mentioned but once in the Scriptures. A passage in the book of Revelation states: "And they gathered them together into the place which is called in Hebrew 'Har-Magedon'" (16:16). Before one is prepared to consider the possible meaning of "Armageddon", he must first understand something of the nature and design of the book of Revelation as a whole.
Revelation is a symbolic book of hope - It must first be noted that the book of Revelation is a highly symbolic document, as evidenced by both the introduction, and the type of material contained therein. The inspired author affirmed that Christ "signified" the message by his angel unto His servant John (1:1). The Greek verb carries the idea of figurative representation. Strictly speaking, it means to make known bu some sort of sign, it is admirably suited to the symbolic character of the book. This should warn the reader not to expect a literal presentation of future history, but a symbolic portrayal of that which must yet come to pass. The last book of the New Testament is filled with symbols -- like blood, wine, harlot, gold, white robes, etc.
The book of Revelation is a proclamation of victory. One of the key words in the narrative is "overcome". It is a fact admitted by all that this book was written in a time of bitter and far-reaching persecution. The object of the writing was to assure the followers of Christ of the absolute and total overthrow of God's enemies, and the glorious triumph of the Christian religion.
What is Armageddon?(Revelation 16) This awesome chapter records the pouring out of seven bowls of God's wrath into the earth (v. 1). The bowls of wrath are in the form of plagues (sores, blood, fire, frogs), reminiscent of the Exodus plagues (Chapters 7-11), and they are designed to be universal, strictly punitive, and final. They point us to God's overthrow of all that is evil. Are literal frogs literally going to come from the literal mouths of literal creatures to literally engage in battle on the literal plain of Meggido? I would assume that even modern millennialists do not believe that the battle of Armageddon will be fought by frogs. Then the plain of Meggido is only about twenty miles long by fourteen miles wide, and that is much too small to accomodate a battle of the magnitude (hundreds of millions of soldiers) demanded by modern dispensational writers.
Exactl then, what is "Har-Magedon"? It needs to be recognized that in speaking of Armageddon, or the mountain of Meggido, the apostle John is not alluding to a literal place. The use of geographical points to emphasize spiritual truths is a common biblical appearance. For example, the word "hell" (Greek: gehenna). The Greek gehenna relates to the Hebrew gehinnom, which was the Valley of Hinnom just south of Jerusalem. In Old Testament time, when the Jews became involved in idolatry, they offered their children as burnt sacrifices there (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). Later, because of its connection with pain, weeping, and burning (Hinnom became the city dump, continuously on fire), gehenna became symbol for the final punishment of Hell. Certainly it would be absurd to contend that on the Day of Judgment, the wicked will be cast into the literal Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem.
Similarly, and characteristically, John, in the Revelation, frequently uses places as symbols for concepts. So Zion (14:1), or Jerusalem (21:2), are symbols of God's spiritual city, the church. Babylon signifies apostasy, and all that is opposed to God (14:8); Egypt and Sodom (11:8) represent oppression and wickedness; the Euphrates (16:12) was symbolic of the point of origin of (spiritual) Israel's enemies, etc. It is within such a reference frame that "mountain of Meggido" likewise is used. Har-Magedon is symbolic of the final overthrow of all the forces of evil by the might and power of God. It is important to observe that Revelation 16 actually says nothing about the battle of Armageddon taking place at that point. There, the forces merely are gathered together, awaiting "the war of the great day of God, the Almighty" which He comes "as a thief" (16:14-15). Note: the great day of God is "the day of God's final judgment", at which time the earth will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:12). Moreover, the expression "come as a thief" is repeatedly employed in connection with Christ's Second Coming (Matthew 24:43; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10). The battle scene itself is pictured in Revelation 19:11-16.
"And I saw the heaven opened; and behold a white horse, and he sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven follwed him upon white horses, clothes in fine linen, white and pure. And out of his nouth procedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty. And he hath on his garment and on his thigh a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."
Concerning this remarkable description, the following observations are in order:
First, the one coming from heaven is clearly Christ, the Word (John 1:1, 14), and the white horse is a symbol of His victorious conquest. Second, He is coming to judge and make war. But judgment will take place at His Second Coming (Matthew 25:31ff); hence, His war against the enemies of God will occur at the time. Third, the Lord smites the rebellious nations with a sharp sword that proceeds out of His mouth. Elsewhere, Paul shows that at the time of His "coming" (Greek: parousia -- a technical term for the Lord's final coming in judgment), Jesus Christ will assassinate His enemies "with the breath of His mouth", and bring them to nothing (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
In totaling, our argument is arranged logically as follows: * The battle of Armageddon will occur when Christ comes to judge (Revelation 16:16; 19:11) * But He will judge at His Second Coming * The battle of Armageddon will thus take place at the Second Coming of Christ * There, Armageddon is the punishment inflcited by Christ at His Second Coming
Conclusion
The dispensational view of the battle of Armageddon is not correct. It contains not the slightest support in the Scriptures. Rather, it is grounded upon a novel and relatively recent (about a century ago) scheme of theological presuppostions. It is buttressed by an erroneous exegetical system that completely ignores the obvious symbolism of the book of Revelation and crudely literalizes its pictures, It is part of a doctrine that reflects in many ways upon the integrity of the Word of God, hence, it must be rejected by careful and conscientious Bible students. Christians have nothing to fear of an impending political Armageddon. However, all who are out of Christ (Galatians 3:26-27) or who are unfaithful to the Lord (2 Corinthians 11:2) had best prepare against the awful day of spiritual Armageddon!
In the Bible, THE MAIN THINGS ARE THE PLAIN THINGS, AND THE PLAIN THINGS ARE THE MAIN THINGS.". This is especially true as one studies the book of Revelation. May God bless you as you strive to be a good Bible student!
Last edited by BlueJay180; 19th April 2009 at 11:27 PM.
What does the Bible really say about women preachers/ministers/evangelists? Plenty. There shouldn't be any preaching from the pulpit at all. Only men should do that because Paul said through God by the Holy Spirit in 1 Timothy 2:12 that "I do not allow them (women) to teach (preach) or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet." It is okay if a woman is supervisor, chairman, president or CEO of a company/corporation, principal, doctor, governor, Congresswoman, delegate, senator, Secretary of State (or any Secretary), queen, princess, prime minister, or even President of The United States. But she is not allowed to preach God's Word in the church or anywhere. She is also not allowed to be an elder (pastor) or a deacon either. It is entirely unscriptual. She can be a Sunday school teacher as long she doesn't teach men. She can teach other women and children as well. Feel free to leave comments...I'll have more later, Lord willing.
Wow! Did Jesus make a big mistake when He sent Mary Magdelene to instruct the disciples that He was risen from the dead! What was He thinking?
How is sending a message by a friend to other friends a contradiction of what Blue Jay has written? He didn't say women and men couldn't carry on a conversation - he just said women are not authorized to hold a position of authority in the church.
I don't believe Blue Jay meant to imply that Christian women could not speak to Christian men. I also don't believe Blue Jay implies that women can't privately discuss issues and help a brother in Christ understand doctrine Biblically, as in the case of Paul and his fellow tentmakers.
__________________ Annie
It often shows a fine command of language to say nothing.
The letter killeth, and God purposely pleased those divine words in the Bible to say something to us deep and profound; but we have a tendency to hear and see what some man made system believes and ignore the fact that God’s spirit always has a deep and profound message it we (singular) have an ear to hear.
Like I just said God is a spirit; neither male nor female; just like Adam before God took the rib from Adam and created Eve.
When God speaks to us He uses what I will call spiritual language, symbolisms, examples, parables to show us something beyond the letter that killeth.
1 Corin 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come. example
Example: NT:5178 a : Strong’s: tupikos (toop-ee-kos'); an adverb related to NT:5179; found only in 1 Cor 10:11: as a warning, by way of example, typologically (i.e. figuratively, as a prophetic type, a typological interpretation of Scripture)
For this reason so many literalize God’s Word, because their minds are earthy, carnal or religious; but look a little closer; I like the word see: (Gk) with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable See: Strong’s NT:3700
God is a Spirit which is not male or female BUT: Masculine is always spirit or spiritual (man child) God is always referred in the masculine with the exception of one of his names (El Shaddai) which is feminine (sorry to break some wineskins)? It has been said there are over two hundred different names for God is scripture; a name speaks of name, nature, character and authority. God is one but has many different natures.
But look at the feminine side of scripture we have the soul, the church, Baby lon. My point a man can have a soulish type ministry spiritually speaking. But I have meet women who were masculine for their ministries were spirit.
"El", often translated "God", primarily means "might" or "power." David speaks His Name: "It is El that girdeth me with strength." The revelation of the name "Shaddai" is different. It also expresses power, but it is not the power of violence, but of all-bountifulness. "Shaddai" means "Breasted", a word formed from the Hebrew word "Shad" meaning "the breast", more specifically, "a woman’s breast". Thus "Shaddai"means "The Pourer or Shedder forth" of blessings both natural and spiritual. This name shows us His nature as One whose self-sacrificing love gives and pours itself out for others.
But there is something deeper than even this — something that corresponds to the tenderness of a mother in holding, nursing, nurturing, caring for, and comforting the weary and wounded spirit of her child. Mothers are the tenderest image in humanity! There is something in God which corresponds to that power of the tender and compassionate feminine nature, something of which, indeed, that feminine care and comfort is only the pale, earthly reflection. Yes, God is a Mother as well as a Father, only He is so much finer a mother than the finest mother you ever knew!
The references in scripture to God as a Mother are numerous. "As one which his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (Isa. 66:13). In Genesis 1:2 we read, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
" That word moved in the Hebrew indicates a "hovering" or "brooding" that began to take place upon the surface of the waters. The word also indicates a "fluttering" such as the wings of a fowl. So in the very beginning of this planet Earth we see the first manifestation of the maternal, or feminine, character of God. In the beautiful Song of Moses he says to the unfaithful people of Israel, "Of the Rock that bore you, you were unmindful; you forgot the God who travailed in your birth" (Deut. 32:18, Amplified). Here God is portrayed as a disappointed Mother who bore us and brought us forth! These words clearly involve the image of childbirth, of God as a Mother. "Under His wings," an expression used again and again in scripture, is a mother figure. Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Mat. 23:37). It is the mother-bird that gathers up her brood under her wings to feel the heat of her body, and for protection. So Christ says, in effect, "I would be a Mother to you!"
Angel…..
NT:32
aggelos (ang'-el-os); from aggello [probably derived from NT:71; compare NT:34] (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:
This was not a translation from the Greek, but instead the translators took the Greek word “aggelos” and concocted is a transleration not a translation for the word angel
The word angel simply means messenger; many time there are heavenly messengers as well as in some cases earthy messenger, you must weigh each verse closely.
Hosea 4:6 (KJV)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children
WHY NOT FOOT WASHING?
by Dr. Hoyt W. Allen, Jr. - executive director of KYOWVA Evangelistic Association in Ironton, OH www.kyowva.com
Some have wondered why the (Independent) Churches of Christ/Christian Churches do not practice foot washing during the Communion Service. We will attempt to answer this question.
It is only in John's Gospel (13:1-17) that we find a record of foot washing during the "Last Supper", not in the other three Gospels. Jesus and His twelve apostles had gone to an upper room in Jerusalem to observe the Passover Feast together. While they were eating the feast, Jesus got up, poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet. When He finished, He said to them "Do you understand what I have done for you?...I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you." (verses 12-15).
Notice why Jesus washed the disciples' feet. There was strife among the disciples over whom of them was the greatest (Luke 22:24). The custom of that day was that the host provided a servant to wash the dust-covered feet of his guest(s) or he himself would do so. During this time period, the guest(s) always had dusty feet, since everyone wore sandals and the roads were of dirt.
When Jesus saw an opportunity to teach His disciples humility, He took advantage of it. He did this by stooping to do a servant's job.
Today, we do not practice foot wahing in our worship service because:
1. Jesus never commanded us to do this, as He did in telling us to remember Him through the loaf and the cup in the Communion Service.
2. It is not the custom in our day to wash the guest's feet. We now have concrete and asphalt streets. We take our guest's coat and hat, offer him/her a seat, and then usually offer him/her something to drink. This is our way of showing hospitality, not foot washing.
3. Foot washing was never observed in the New Testament church. It is mentioned only once in the Bible, after the Passovewr meal. That reference is to a home where strangers were lodged (1 Timothy 5:10).
Some who practice what the call "The Complete Lord's Supper" by washing one another's feet along with the Communion are not following the actual example of Jesus, because He washed both feet of the disciples', not just one.
When Jesus commanded, "Teach disciples to observe all things I have commanded", He was not speaking of foot washing, thus we do not do it.
Great, because that's what Paul said you should do.
What you should do is to read and study the New Testament. Don't place any faith in what your minister or Sunday School teacher has told you. (Place your faith in God.) Read it yourself and make up your own mind. When you are judged on Judgement Day, Christ Jesus isn't going to ask your minister if you are saved...He's going to ask YOU.
Arrogance? I don't know if that is true. Short sighted perhaps but not arrogant.
Me, myself I was glad to see the information on footwashing. And the new posts nudged be back to a study that I had begun with someone on this subject. Some of the best learning is done when we set things aside for a little while, chew on them a little bit, and return to the study with perhaps a different perspective or a better understanding of the parts of the subject we are studying.
__________________ Annie
It often shows a fine command of language to say nothing.
Linear Mode
