Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[Wormwood]

Everyone, lets try to return to the OP. Lets not make this about character or personal faults. We all have plenty of them and we should all be mature enough to address the viewpoint rather than the problems you have with the individual. There is absolutely no need for personal attacks and insults on a Christian forum.

 

[Barrd]

Everyone, lets try to return to the OP. Lets not make this about character or personal faults. We all have plenty of them and we should all be mature enough to address the viewpoint rather than the problems you have with the individual. There is absolutely no need for personal attacks and insults on a Christian forum.

That gets a great big AMEN from me, WW.
Christians have a mandate to love one another, even as the Lord has loved us.
That sort of precludes personal attacks and insults.

 

[StanJ]

Laugh anyway!

Scientifically proven to be good for our health

Oh trust me, I have plenty of laughs on here. I also have plenty of head shakes.

 

[Barrd]

Well, I think it is unlikely that Paul just picked a day at random, especially the first day of the week where they would likely need those wages after a day many of them didnt work. Also, just FYI, "exegete" means "to draw out" or "to lead out." The prefix means "out." Eisegete has the prefix eis- which means "into." I think that is the word you are looking for. Like I said, your view is possible. I am not trying to be dogmatic about it. I think it could be seen both ways, and dont think a definitive case can be made that the NT teaches Sunday worship for Christians. However, I do find it more than coincidental given the texts we have that something as significant as the "Sabbath" as the day for meeting in the synagogue would be changed so quickly after the Apostles death to some of the earliest literature we have that says that Sunday worship was a practice for all the churches. Especially the Didache which was likely written within a decade or two after Paul's death (and John would have likely still been alive).

So, the time frame is much less than 200 years. If much of the NT is written between the 50s - 90s AD and we have the Didache (likely 80-120ish) which clearly proclaims that Christians were to gather on Sunday...and early church Fathers writing around 200 who declare this is the practice of all the churches, then we have at least some (if not all) Christians meeting on Sunday in the first century and all Christians meeting on Sunday by the end of the second century. Changing something like a day of worship...especially the Sabbath...for believers scattered across half the world without social media, etc. is not small thing. To think this just evolved without any instruction from core church leaders or even the Apostles within a few decades over the known world seems highly unlikely to me. I think it is more likely that these references by Paul and John indicate that this was already the practice and something they practiced very early on. I think it is likely that people like Paul took Saturday to go to the synagogue to try to evangelize the Jews and then used Sunday as a time to gather the local church for teaching and encouragement.

Have you actually read the Didache, WW?
Here is a site with the full text in a pdf.

http://site.paracletepress.com/samples/teaching-12-pgs.19-34.pdf


It is a fascinating bit of writing. I see that the commandments were still in force, although not exactly in the way that I had thought:

Do not commit murder;
do not commit adultery;
do not corrupt boys;
do not have illicit sex;
do not steal;
do not practice magic;
do not practice witchcraft;
you shall not murder a child,
whether it be born or unborn.
Do not covet the things of your neighbor.

but pretty darn close.

And I do see a section on "The Lord's Day"


14
On the Lord’s Day
14:1
On the Lord’s day, gather yourselves together and
break bread, give thanks, but first confess your sins so
that your sacrifice may be pure.
32
T
14:2
However, let no one who is at odds with his brother
come together with you, until he has reconciled,
so that your sacrifice may not be profaned.
14:3
For this is what the Lord has said: “For from the
rising of the sun to its setting my name is great
among the nations, and in every place incense is
offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my
name is great among the nations, says the
Lord of hosts. . . . For I am a great King, says the
Lord of hosts, and my name is reverenced among the
nations.”

But it's not exactly clear whether this is Saturday or Sunday. It seems that the person or persons who wrote this were quite a bit more concerned about attitude than what day of the week it was.
Perhaps we all ought to take our cue from him/them, and adjust our own attitudes....

It seems, reading this through, that all of us have gotten some things wrong...

 

[Wormwood]

I've been a Mom for 45 years...I tend to call people "Hun" or "Sweetie". In face to face encounters, nobody has ever objected to me calling them "Hun". Nor have I ever had anyone object in any online experience I've ever had...except for on this board. I tend to be an affectionate person...in person, I hug people. it's a part of who I am. I never thought it was a bad thing...but evidently, it is, at least, around here.

Barrd, I apologize if you were being kind with these surnames. Where I am from, if you call someone you dont really know "Sweetie" or "Hun" in a debate, it is considered condesending. Its akin to addressing someone like a small child. FYI

Also, I dont know that the Sabbath was ever referred to as "the Lord's Day." If a reference could be found that indicated as much, I would concede the point that the Didache is perhaps not encourging believers to gather on Sunday and could be referring to Saturday. However, it seems to me that "the Lord's Day" can only refer to the day of the resurrection, which is what the early church fathers indicate.

I agree with you that our hearts and attitude is what is paramount, not the day of the week on which we worship. Jesus said true worshipers worship in Spirit and truth. He did not say true worshipers worship on Saturday or Sunday.

 

[Barrd]

Barrd, I apologize if you were being kind with these surnames. Where I am from, if you call someone you dont really know "Sweetie" or "Hun" in a debate, it is considered condesending. Its akin to addressing someone like a small child. FYI

I had never heard that rule before, WW. I certainly never meant to be condescending to anyone. My oldest kid is 45 years old and I have great grandkids that are less than a year old. In other words, WW, I am regularly surrounded with kids...both my own kids and grandkids as well as their friends. All of these people are "Hun" or "Sweetie" or "Precious", etc. It is a habit with me, (and easier than trying to remember a dozen names of various friends). I never intended to address anyone like a small child.
Nor were my feelings hurt by being addressed in kind. I was more amused than hurt, actually. I kinda like being called "Pumpkin". It's what my Dad used to call me...even after I'd had kids of my own, I was still "Pumpkin".
I miss that old man!

Also, I dont know that the Sabbath was ever referred to as "the Lord's Day." If a reference could be found that indicated as much, I would concede the point that the Didache is perhaps not encourging believers to gather on Sunday and could be referring to Saturday. However, it seems to me that "the Lord's Day" can only refer to the day of the resurrection, which is what the early church fathers indicate.

Are you serious? God, Himself, referred to the Sabbath as belonging to Him. Hear Isaiah:

Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Isa 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Jesus says that He is the Lord of the Sabbath:

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Luk 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.


Here is John, on "The Lord's Day"...but I don't see where is says this is the first day of the week...could it be that our 21st century minds have gotten so used to thinking of "The Lord's Day" as Sunday that we have forgotten that John was a Jew who was raised to believe that Saturday was a Holy day?

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

I agree with you that our hearts and attitude is what is paramount, not the day of the week on which we worship. Jesus said true worshipers worship in Spirit and truth. He did not say true worshipers worship on Saturday or Sunday.

Although Jesus, Himself, worshiped on the Sabbath.

Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

If it was good enough for Him, it is certainly good enough for us.

 

[Wormwood]

Here is John, on "The Lord's Day"...but I don't see where is says this is the first day of the week...could it be that our 21st century minds have gotten so used to thinking of "The Lord's Day" as Sunday that we have forgotten that John was a Jew who was raised to believe that Saturday was a Holy day?

I am serious. :) The title "The Lord's Day" is not being used here, Barrd. "My Holy day" is not the same as the Lord's day, just as "The Day of the Lord" (often referred to in the OT as a day of judgment) is not the same as the Sabbath or "The Lord's Day." When a phrase is used as a title, the words matter. US Bank and Bank of America sound the same, but when used as titles, they are not referring to the same institution.

“Lord’s day” in the NT occurs only in Rev 1:10, but in the post-apostolic literature we have the following references: Ignatius, Ad Mag., ix.1, “No longer keeping the Sabbath but living according to the Lord’s day, on which also our Light arose”; Ev. Pet., ver 35, “The Lord’s day began to dawn” (cf Mt 28:1); ver 50, “early on the Lord’s day” (cf Lk 24:1); Barn 15:9, “We keep the eighth day with gladness,” on which Jesus arose from the dead.” I.e. Sunday, as the day of Christ’s resurrection, was kept as a Christian feast and called “the Lord’s day,” a title fixed so definitely as to be introduced by the author of Ev. Pet. Into phrases from the canonical Gospels. Its appropriateness in Rev 1:10 is obvious, as St. John received his vision of the exalted Lord when all Christians had their minds directed toward His entrance into glory through the resurrection.

Burton Scott Easton, “Lord’s, Day,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 1919.

“The Lord’s Day” is expressed in the dative case: tē kyriakē hēmerā. There is no valid ground for questioning whether this really referred to Sunday. To this very day it is the regular word for “Sunday” in modern Greek, and it is plainly so intended in the earliest postbiblical witnesses (Didache 14:1, first quarter of the second century; Epistle of Barnabas 15:1, early second century). Justin Martyr (mid-second century) describes a typical order of service at a Christian service “on the day called Sunday” (First Apology 67). In his Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew), Justin argues that the command in Genesis 17 to circumcise an infant “on the eight day” was in tended by God as “a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, our Lord Jesus Christ” (Chap. 41). By the early third century, Tertullian went so far as to insist that “we [Christians] have nothing to do with the sabbaths or other Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day, for instance, and Pentecost” (On Idolatry 14). In De Oratione (23) Tertullian urged the cessation of labor on Sunday so that it might be preserved as a day of worship for God’s people.
A very interesting testimony is found in the Syriac The Teaching of the Apostles, dating from the second half of the third century, to the effect that Christ’s apostles were the first to designate the first day of the week as the day for Christian worship. “The Apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the dead, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 8.668). (For most of the quotations from the church fathers, I an indebted to Henry Waterman’s fine article “The Lord’s Day” [Tenney, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, 3:965–66].)


Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 119.

 

[Barrd]

I am serious. :) The title "The Lord's Day" is not being used here, Barrd. "My Holy day" is not the same as the Lord's day, just as "The Day of the Lord" (often referred to in the OT as a day of judgment) is not the same as the Sabbath or "The Lord's Day." When a phrase is used as a title, the words matter. US Bank and Bank of America sound the same, but when used as titles, they are not referring to the same institution.

One of the reasons guys like you get so frustrated with me, WW, is because I don't pay much attention to "scholars".
I believe with all of my soul that the Bible is intended for simple people. Seriously. Just plain, every day folks, who will take it at face value...fishermen, carpenters, tent-makers...even housewives.
The one guy mentioned in the NT who did have an expensive education...well, that education did not help him recognize his Lord and King when He came, did it? No...Jesus had to knock him down and blind him...literally blind him...before he could see.
So, pulling in these scholarly references is really not going to do much to further your pov with me...I'm sorry.

Now, I'll freely admit that you aren't going to find any exact reference to "the Lord's day" anywhere else, but I am still wondering how we come to the conclusion that "the Lord's day" absolutely MUST mean Sunday? I really don't see any reference to show that, other than Acts 20:7, which definitely does NOT look like a worship service, but more like a farewell banquet for Paul, who was leaving the next day, and who knew when, or even if, his friends would see him again? I think it's kinda sad that this scripture has been used so often to prove that the apostles worshiped on Sunday, that the plight of poor Eutychus gets overlooked. I would have thought the passage would have been much more useful as a warning to long-winded preachers...

Still, we both agree that the important thing is not what day you meet on. I read somewhere about a group of miners who worshiped together on Thursday evenings, because that was the only day they could all be together. And I am sure that God blessed their worship, even if it wasn't on the traditional day.

One thing I did notice in the Didache...the Apostles still considered themselves to be "under law".


2:1 The second commandment of the teaching is this:

2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor.

2:3 Do not swear or bear false witness. Do not speak evil of others; do not bear grudges.

2:4 You should not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double-tongue is a deadly snare.

2:5 Your speech should not be false nor empty, but fulfilled by action.

2:6 Do not be covetous, or greedy, or hypocritical, or malicious, or arrogant. Do not have designs against your neighbor.

2:7 Hate no one; correct some, pray for others, and some you should love more than your own life.


3 My Child, Flee Evil

3:1 My child, flee evil of all kinds, and everything like it.

3:2 Don't be prone to anger, for anger leads to murder. Don't be jealous or quarrelsome or hot-tempered, for all these things lead to murder.

3:3 My child, don't be lustful, for lust leads to illicit sex. Don't be a filthy talker or allow your eyes a free reign, for these lead to adultery.

3:4 My child, don't observe omens, since it leads to idolatry. Don't be an enchanter, or an astrologer, or a purifier, or be willing to see or hear about these things, for these all lead to idolatry.

3:5 My child, don't be a liar, since a lie leads to theft. Don't love money or seek glory, for these things lead to thievery.

3:6 My child, don't grumble, since it leads to blasphemy, and don't be self-willed or evil-minded, for all these things lead to blasphemy.

3:7 On the contrary, be gentle, since the gentle will inherit the earth.

3:8 Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good, and with trembling, treasure the words you have received.

3:9 Don't exalt yourself or open your heart to overconfidence. Don't be on intimate terms with mighty people, but with just and lowly ones.

3:10 Accept whatever happens to you as a blessing, knowing that nothing comes to pass apart from God.

So, evidently being "under grace" does not mean being free from obeying the law.
Which is what I've been saying all along....
Well, sorta.

 

[Wormwood]

One of the reasons guys like you get so frustrated with me, WW, is because I don't pay much attention to "scholars".
I believe with all of my soul that the Bible is intended for simple people. Seriously. Just plain, every day folks, who will take it at face value...fishermen, carpenters, tent-makers...even housewives.
The one guy mentioned in the NT who did have an expensive education...well, that education did not help him recognize his Lord and King when He came, did it? No...Jesus had to knock him down and blind him...literally blind him...before he could see.
So, pulling in these scholarly references is really not going to do much to further your pov with me...I'm sorry.

I find this to be somewhat disingenuous, Barrd. You are more than eager to quote Greek and scholars when it suits your cause. When it doesnt, it seems you want to play the "simple" understanding of Scripture is sufficent, card. What happened to the simple reading of Scripture when it comes to 1 Tim. 2? Well, when the "simple" reading isnt satisfactory, apparently we need to pull in all kinds of study of Artemis, Ephesus, cults, Greek words, biblical contexts, and even discredit the inspiration of the OT if necessary.

I find its not so much the scholarly references you object to, but pretty much any opinion other than your own. This is what concerns me about your approach to studying the Bible. It seems you devise an opinion you are entirely unwilling to entertain any other thought. The scholars become Pharisees, the OT becomes a product of Moses' chauvinistic imagination, hypothetical backgrounds get imagined or the plain reading of Scripture is disregarded in favor of modern scholasticism. You show absolutely no consistency or humility in your approach to Scripture other than to essentially say, "I'm right, no matter what history, scholars, or even the Bible itself says and I will give credence to whatever resource aids my cause and will gladly discredit that same resource in the next moment if they oppose my cause."

In sum, you dont frustrate me. I am just trying to point out these glaring contradictions in your approach to understanding the Scriptures to which you seem entirely oblivious. Like I said, people disagree with me all the time. It is no shocker. What is a shocker is the mental gymnastics you perform without any apparent recognition of your hermeneutical hypocrisy. (hey, hows that for a new term :)).

Now, I'll freely admit that you aren't going to find any exact reference to "the Lord's day" anywhere else, but I am still wondering how we come to the conclusion that "the Lord's day" absolutely MUST mean Sunday? I really don't see any reference to show that, other than Acts 20:7, which definitely does NOT look like a worship service, but more like a farewell banquet for Paul, who was leaving the next day, and who knew when, or even if, his friends would see him again?

As I said, I would not be dogmatic about it. I just think, given the many uses and definitions of the term "the Lord's day" given in early church history as Sunday, I think it is a safe assumption to make. Again, I am not saying you could not potentially be right. I just find it strange to see the lengths you will go to prove your point about something that is so nebulous. As I see it, I could be right or you could be right. I think historical backgrounds strongly favor my position, but none of those authors are inerrant so perhaps they are wrong. What I do know is that those who claim to be Christian and make days a matter of right relationship with God (im not saying you are doing this) are undermining God's grace and that is never appropriate.

 

[Barrd]

I find this to be somewhat disingenuous, Barrd. You are more than eager to quote Greek and scholars when it suits your cause. When it doesnt, it seems you want to play the "simple" understanding of Scripture is sufficent, card. What happened to the simple reading of Scripture when it comes to 1 Tim. 2? Well, when the "simple" reading isnt satisfactory, apparently we need to pull in all kinds of study of Artemis, Ephesus, cults, Greek words, biblical contexts, and even discredit the inspiration of the OT if necessary.

I don't think I ever quoted any Greek scholars...I don't think I know of any. But your point is taken, WW. I just think that, when you try to understand the simple reading of the Bible, it is important to understand who is talking and who he is talking to. Just as you would take into account the environment that Deborah lived in when reading her story, so we must take into account the environment in Ephesus when reading Paul's instructions to Timothy.

I find its not so much the scholarly references you object to, but pretty much any opinion other than your own. This is what concerns me about your approach to studying the Bible. It seems you devise an opinion you are entirely unwilling to entertain any other thought. The scholars become Pharisees, the OT becomes a product of Moses' chauvinistic imagination, hypothetical backgrounds get imagined or the plain reading of Scripture is disregarded in favor of modern scholasticism. You show absolutely no consistency or humility in your approach to Scripture other than to essentially say, "I'm right, no matter what history, scholars, or even the Bible itself says and I will give credence to whatever resource aids my cause and will gladly discredit that same resource in the next moment if they oppose my cause."

Again, I think it is important to understand who is talking...and who he is talking to. This doesn't have a whole lot to do with "scholarly references"....it has to do with common sense. Common sense alone tells me that Moses was educated at the feet of the Egyptians, in Pharaoh's court. Do you really think this early influence had nothing at all to do with laws that allowed one to beat a slave with a rod till he is at the point of death? Do you really, honestly believe that God breathed that stuff out? Do you seriously think that God would simply shrug His mighty shoulders, and go "well, it's his money"? If you do, well, there's not much more to be said, is there?

In sum, you dont frustrate me. I am just trying to point out these glaring contradictions in your approach to understanding the Scriptures to which you seem entirely oblivious. Like I said, people disagree with me all the time. It is no shocker. What is a shocker is the mental gymnastics you perform without any apparent recognition of your hermeneutical hypocrisy. (hey, hows that for a new term :)).

"Hermeneutical hypocrisy"....nice. Very clever.
I know I've said this before...but it is the truth. My parents were not particularly religious. Oh, we belonged to St. Mary's Episcopal Church, and sometimes we even went. I was "christened" as a baby, and later, the year I turned 12, I was "confirmed". It was my aunt's responsibility to see to it that I got a religious education, as she "stood up" for me at my baptism.
Now, my Mom's sister and her step-mother took their religion very seriously.
And it was that grandmother who bought me my first Bible, the same year I was 12.
And everything changed for me. I don't have words to describe it, WW...but all the same, my whole world changed.
But here's the thing.
I did not have a teacher. I was not subjected to anyone's "doctrine", I didn't know squat about "dogma"....and I had sure never heard such words as "exegesis" or "hermeneutics".
I just, simply, read the Book. That's all. No scholarly treatises, no "proper instruction"...nothing but me, my new Bible, and the Lord.
And I will freely admit...the little girl that I was got bored when she hit Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. As far as following the story line went, those three books sucked (forgive me, Lord!) Now, later on, I became interested, that is true...but it took me several readings to really concentrate on those three books.

I don't think anyone who grew up in a church environment, or especially those who have their expensive educations, like Paul had, could ever really understand what it was like to simply read God's Word, without all that. To come to it as an innocent child, wanting only to get closer to Jesus...praying for Him to open her mind, asking Him to come and dwell with her, as He had promised...
And, WW...Jesus answers prayers like that. He really does...

As I said, I would not be dogmatic about it. I just think, given the many uses and definitions of the term "the Lord's day" given in early church history as Sunday, I think it is a safe assumption to make. Again, I am not saying you could not potentially be right. I just find it strange to see the lengths you will go to prove your point about something that is so nebulous. As I see it, I could be right or you could be right. I think historical backgrounds strongly favor my position, but none of those authors are inerrant so perhaps they are wrong. What I do know is that those who claim to be Christian and make days a matter of right relationship with God (im not saying you are doing this) are undermining God's grace and that is never appropriate.

Given that Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and that He calls Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, and given that there are several accounts of Paul going to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and given that there is not one single rational reason why they would make this sudden change from everything they had known all their lives...well, I have my doubts.
Bottom line is that I believe that God is a whole lot more concerned about what is in our hearts than what day we worship.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that He cares more for what is in our hearts than He does for excellent exegeses, or hallowed, harmonious hermeneutics. It's not nearly as important to be "right" as it is to be "right with God"...

 

[StanJ]

Everyone, lets try to return to the OP. Lets not make this about character or personal faults. We all have plenty of them and we should all be mature enough to address the viewpoint rather than the problems you have with the individual. There is absolutely no need for personal attacks and insults on a Christian forum.

You are absolutely right WW, but I'm only human and do tend to react to them personally. Pray for me that I'll learn to report them and not reply to them.

 

[StanJ]

One of the reasons guys like you get so frustrated with me, WW, is because I don't pay much attention to "scholars".
I believe with all of my soul that the Bible is intended for simple people. Seriously. Just plain, every day folks, who will take it at face value...fishermen, carpenters, tent-makers...even housewives.
The one guy mentioned in the NT who did have an expensive education...well, that education did not help him recognize his Lord and King when He came, did it? No...Jesus had to knock him down and blind him...literally blind him...before he could see.
So, pulling in these scholarly references is really not going to do much to further your pov with me...I'm sorry.

So you don't pay attention to Paul, or Luke? You don't think Jesus was an expert in the laws of God above ALL scholars of His day?

You believe this because, the Bible says so, or because you don't need to hold yourself responsible to anyone but your own limited understanding?

Do you know why Jesus called Saul? It was exactly because of Paul's knowledge of how Jesus fulfilled ALL the OT prophecies and promises. What Jesus did was stop Paul, in his tracks, so he could SHOW him who He was.

Deriding scholars instead of showing how they are wrong, is nothing more than that. It does not support your position.

 

[mjrhealth]

Do you know why Jesus called Saul? It was exactly because of Paul's knowledge of how Jesus fulfilled ALL the OT prophecies and promises. What Jesus did was stop Paul, in his tracks, so he could SHOW him who He was.

Ye. justifies all the learning yet,

Act 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

Jesus could use Him because with all His learning He was blind, so He became blind, when His eyes where opened He counted all His learning as worthless, all He wanted to know was Jesus, unlike so many who prefer to argue over a book.

Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

The bit you always seem to leave out. The blind following the blind, can see where this is going...

 

[Barrd]

Ye. justifies all the learning yet,

Act 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

Jesus could use Him because with all His learning He was blind, so He became blind, when His eyes where opened He counted all His learning as worthless, all He wanted to know was Jesus, unlike so many who prefer to argue over a book.

Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

The bit you always seem to leave out. The blind following the blind, can see where this is going...

And we know Who it is that opens blind eyes...even super-educated ones...

 

[StanJ]

And we know Who it is that opens blind eyes...even super-educated ones...

Yes that's right. Sadly it's the ones that don't think they need to be educated or taught by ANY man, that refuse to see or open their eyes. There a very good reason why Jesus gave the offices of pastors and teachers to the church. Proverbs 9:7-9

 

[Barrd]

Sometimes Jesus gives the office of pastor to someone you may not think is qualified for it.
However, it is the Lord's place to judge...and not man's.

 

[mjrhealth]

educated or taught by ANY man,

Well that is only a problem for those who dont believe God speaks to us today.

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

and

1Co_1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

And from all the posts above, one can understand why God uses teh base things of the world.

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

If you dont ask, than He cant tell you, if you dont believe He can tell you, well thath there is no hope. If its not God who is talking to you, only leaves you and the devil.

 

[Barrd]

Well that is only a problem for those who dont believe God speaks to us today.

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

and

1Co_1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

And from all the posts above, one can understand why God uses teh base things of the world.

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

If you dont ask, than He cant tell you, if you dont believe He can tell you, well thath there is no hope. If its not God who is talking to you, only leaves you and the devil.

And God does speak to His people today, just as He did so long ago.

Psa 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.
Psa 95:7 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,
Psa 95:8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
Joh 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

I don't need to say any more.

 

[StanJ]

Sometimes Jesus gives the office of pastor to someone you may not think is qualified for it. However, it is the Lord's place to judge...and not man's.

That would not be up to me, but to those that administrate the denominations. Most do a good job at ensuring QUALIFIED people are appointed.

 

[Barrd]

That would not be up to me, but to those that administrate the denominations. Most do a good job at ensuring QUALIFIED people are appointed.

Again, it is not up to you or to any QUALIFIED people to make that kind of judgement. Especially about someone who is not a part of your own denomination.