The Good:
Some interesting history of the Lutheran Church’s changes from Roman Catholicism.
God’s blessing is not for sale, and tithing is not for the Christian.
When was Jesus born? Four years ago I did my own post about the possibilities.
The Bad:
All that is wrong about Russell Moore. Why is he not yet booted out of the Southern Baptist Convention?
You just have to love those Methodists; they’ve been permitted all sorts of unbiblical, heretical acts (women in the pulpit, homosexuals in the pulpit, homosexuality supported, social gospel, sanctioning of abortion, etc) yet unless the full denomination permits the “marriage” of two members of the same sex, then this assembly won’t perform real marriages.
An example of why you should avoid Paula White.
Another reason to dislike Chris Tomlin’s music.
The Anglican Church should quit calling itself “Christian.” Especially when you have this sort of leadership!
The Ugly:
More about the false “Passion Translation” of the Bible. Seriously, run from this translation.
Proof that Todd White and Kenneth Copeland are NOT Christians, but they are minions of Satan.
Perry Noble and the guy defending him are both blaspheming the name of God. Noble is really a dangerous wolf, and horribly arrogant as well.
The humorous
4 comments:
It's interesting you took some heat not along ago on the question as to whether women are intrinsically more like to be deceived. This is a stated reason the apostle Paul gives for not permitting a woman to teach or have authority over men.
Yet here we have the first female Anglican bishop, and instead of being a sound, evanglical pastor to showcase egalitarian ideas of ministry, she is going down the Rachel Held Evans road. The idolatry of calling God 'she'. Such idolatry is all too common amongst those who espouse women leaders in the church.
Ken B
"It's interesting you took some heat not along ago on the question as to whether women are intrinsically more like to be deceived." quote Ken B
Dear Ken,
Disagreeing with someone in a respectful manner is not "giving or taking 'heat', nor persecution for the sake of Christ. Carolyn and myself were not being trouble makers, nor revilers, nor 'difficult', nor sinful in any way, shape or form. We were simply disagreeing for in my case, I have been 'under' the authority of some pretty immature emotional men within the 501c. 3 conservative evangelical culture. At the top of the emotional conundrum in addressing the male spectrum within the Baptist church I attended would be the emotion anger. And not a righteous anger by any means.
Many of us 'women' take some 'heat' when we truthfully point out that there will be that "man of perdition" coming, whom all will worship, even the elect. When the Gospel becomes a battle of the genders, I dare say "Ichabod" is written on the door post of that human heart......guess some of us will stick to sharing the Gospel and passing out Bibles for those who are willing to receive....and will leave the mucky muck of gender "roles" to the harlot church.
May the peace of our LORD live in the hearts of His sheep.
Martha
And Carolyn, if you are still visiting here, I would love to say to you, "A most Blessed Thanksgiving to you and yours"
Martha - I fear I have trodden on your toes, which was not the intention at all. My reference to the previous discussion on this meant little more than it's topic that can generate heat. It's a hot topic.
Summarising this in once sentence is bound to miss the nuance that a discussion of 1 Tim 2 needs. It's clear Paul valued women's gifts and ministries in the early church, yet he still makes this rule. My own conclusion on this is that the deception kicks in precisely when women disobey this particular prohibition, couple with a male abdication of responsibility.
As in any doctrinal stance, I think is dangerous to be so set in your ways you would never be prepared to change your mind, even on this one, which is why I hope if someone with an egalitarian argument that was better than the traditional complementarian argument came along I would be willing to change my mind on this.
There is no harm in checking whether we are prohibiting something that should be allowed, or allowing something that should be prohibited.
Yet here we have, yet again in my experience, a departure from apostolic practice and instead of it showcasing egalitarians are right after all, it only goes to illustrate the very thing this passage is designed to prevent.
Ken B
No Ken, you have not trodden on my toes, nor kicked me in the knee, nor have you bruised the reed so to speak.
I do believe when our Holy Scriptures are taught from a complementarian verses and egalitarian perspective, congregants have been led down the rabbithole of heresy, for men and women's egos are now worshiped in place of Jesus. When human authority usurps Jesus' authority in the spiritual life of a born again believer, run to the Scriptures and Jesus' Words for spiritual renewal and life in Him. All Scriptures point to Christ, Ken.
And there is no reason to fear here, for that "emotion" is not relevant to this conversation. Perhaps a more applicable verse intended to build up the faith would be Matthew 10:28. Jesus' words, not mine.
Blessings,
Martha
Post a Comment