The feetwashing

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
74
...following a Jewish carpenter...
kepha31 said:
That's ok, I think the feet washing topic has been exhausted anyway.
Of all the women mentioned in the NT, none of them were ordained. Junia, who is "of note among the Apostles" does not make her an apostle, it means that among the Apostles her holiness was noteworthy.
Deaconess Pheobe assisted in the church with baptisms. Again, she was never ordained to the priesthood.

Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:26-55; John 19:26; Rev. 12:1- Mary is God's greatest creation, was the closest person to Jesus, and yet Jesus did not choose her to become a priest. God chose only men to be priests to reflect the complimentarity of the sexes. Just as the man (the royal priest) gives natural life to the woman in the marital covenant, the ministerial priest gives supernatural life in the New Covenant sacraments.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.” Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers.

Mark 16:9; Luke 7: 37-50; John 8:3-11 - Jesus allowed women to uniquely join in His mission, exalting them above cultural norms. His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture. The Gospel writers are also clear that women participated in Jesus' ministry and, unlike men, never betrayed Jesus. Women have always been held with the highest regard in the Church (e.g., the Church's greatest saint and model of faith is a woman; the Church's constant teaching on the dignity of motherhood; the Church's understanding of humanity as being the Bride united to Christ, etc.).
read more here

The Catholic Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood because she does not have the authority to do so. But it has nothing to do with inequality.

"...And - even beyond the Blessed Virgin - there are plenty of women role models in Catholic history to look up to and emulate: St. Teresa of Avila, or St. Catherine of Siena (who rebuked popes), or St. Therese of Lisieux, or St. Clare, or St. Hildegard of Bingen, or Mother Teresa, or Dorothy Day, or Blessed Edith Stein, or Deborah, Esther, Ruth, and many other biblical heroines. Theological and sexual liberals often appear to look at things as if they were a matter of social psychology, rather than the biblical and Christian theology of creation and spirituality: ultimately the mystery of Christ and His Church.

Role Differentiation is Not Inequality

There is no inequality here whatsoever (e.g., Gal 3:28). If women are unequal to men in orthodox (i.e., Nicene and Chalcedonian) Christianity of whatever stripe, then Jesus is not equal to the Father, since He subjected Himself to the Father (Phil 2:5-8) and even to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51). The Holy Trinity is a very apt analogy because it offers a clear example of an equality which nevertheless includes (by its very nature) subjection and differential roles - exactly analogous to marriage and male ordination. Thus, radical feminism logically leads to heterodoxy with regard to the Holy Trinity, or else undue skepticism towards the Bible. That's why sexual and theological liberalism are so closely allied - it is no coincidence. .."
read more here

I have more to say on the matter but the post is long enough.
I'm torn on this issue, to be honest with you.

My contention is this. Gender, as we know it, did not exist before God created it. God, Himself, is neither male nor female. He is simply God. The male pronoun means nothing...no more than calling both men and women "mankind".

Now, I enjoy being a woman. I'm a feminist in that I have three daughters, and I will object firmly to anyone who says that they should not pursue any career they wish, up to and including preaching the gospel of God.
However, I'm a traditionalist (is that the right word?) when it comes to the male-female relationship. I like having my chair pulled out, or having doors opened for me...those little courtesies mean a lot to me. OTH...and please, I do not mean to brag...I have often wondered if it might have more to do with being a cute little blonde than it does my gender...I've seen the same guys who seem so eager to do these things for me not quite so eager to do them for other women who they don't see as being attractive...and that is just wrong. Ha! I suppose that, as I get older and really need those courtesies, those guys will be doing them for younger prettier women, and ignoring me.

But I digress. You say that Junia was not an apostle, but merely someone the apostles admired. I'm not so sure.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Was Andronicus an apostle? And what were Andronicus or Junia doing in prison, if they had not been preaching the gospel? Not that it was impossible I suppose, but I do wonder. They were both kinsmen of Paul's, and they were both Christians before Paul had had his Damascus experience. Presumably, Paul was not aware of that while he was on his rampage against Christians.
Had they walked with Christ? Were they among the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost?

Come to think of it, how many of the 120, if any, were of the female persuasion?

Just some thoughts. Remember, I am not a Catholic. Now, if I totally agreed with the Catholic faith and doctrine, I would be a Catholic, don't you think?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
508
113
73
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Barrd said:
I'm torn on this issue, to be honest with you.
My contention is this. Gender, as we know it, did not exist before God created it. God, Himself, is neither male nor female. He is simply God. The male pronoun means nothing...no more than calling both men and women "mankind".

Now, I enjoy being a woman. I'm a feminist in that I have three daughters, and I will object firmly to anyone who says that they should not pursue any career they wish, up to and including preaching the gospel of God.
One does not need to be ordained to preach the Gospel. We all do that in various ways in our common priesthood. Jesus commissioned the Apostles (not each individual believer) to teach Matthew 28:16-20 and there were no women present, just The Eleven. DIFFERENT ROLES DOES NOT MEAN INFERIORITY.

However, I'm a traditionalist (is that the right word?) when it comes to the male-female relationship. I like having my chair pulled out, or having doors opened for me...those little courtesies mean a lot to me. OTH...and please, I do not mean to brag...I have often wondered if it might have more to do with being a cute little blonde than it does my gender...I've seen the same guys who seem so eager to do these things for me not quite so eager to do them for other women who they don't see as being attractive...and that is just wrong. Ha! I suppose that, as I get older and really need those courtesies, those guys will be doing them for younger prettier women, and ignoring me.
Well, there's plenty of chivalry in this old man, sweetheart!

But I digress. You say that Junia was not an apostle, but merely someone the apostles admired. I'm not so sure.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Was Andronicus an apostle? And what were Andronicus or Junia doing in prison, if they had not been preaching the gospel? Not that it was impossible I suppose, but I do wonder. They were both kinsmen of Paul's, and they were both Christians before Paul had had his Damascus experience. Presumably, Paul was not aware of that while he was on his rampage against Christians.
Anybody could be arrested just for being a Christian, one did not have to be an Apostle.
Had they walked with Christ? Were they among the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost?

Come to think of it, how many of the 120, if any, were of the female persuasion?
Acts 1:12-14 lists the Apostles present, together with the women, but it doesn't say how many women were there. I'm sure there were a fair number. Why do you think Mary is the only woman mentioned by name?

Just some thoughts. Remember, I am not a Catholic. Now, if I totally agreed with the Catholic faith and doctrine, I would be a Catholic, don't you think?
I don't know. There are too many Catholics that don't agree with Catholic faith and doctrine because they are ill-informed. Hearing and acting on the will of God is what makes us all catholic, not blindly following rules, don't you think?
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
74
...following a Jewish carpenter...
kepha31 said:
I'm torn on this issue, to be honest with you.


My contention is this. Gender, as we know it, did not exist before God created it. God, Himself, is neither male nor female. He is simply God. The male pronoun means nothing...no more than calling both men and women "mankind".

Now, I enjoy being a woman. I'm a feminist in that I have three daughters, and I will object firmly to anyone who says that they should not pursue any career they wish, up to and including preaching the gospel of God.
One does not need to be ordained to preach the Gospel. We all do that in various ways in our common priesthood. Jesus commissioned the Apostles (not each individual believer) to teach Matthew 28:16-20 and there were no women present, just The Eleven. DIFFERENT ROLES DOES NOT MEAN INFERIORITY.
Perhaps I should have made myself very clear. I would object firmly to anyone who says that my girls could not pursue any career that my sons might pursue, up to and including becoming a pastor if that's what they want to do. I know for a fact that there are women with the ability to pastor a church, and do it very well...in fact I know of one who, I think, is doing a much better job than the man she replaced, who didn't bother himself much with such mundane chores as visiting the sick in the hospital, or the old folks' home, for instance, This lady finds time for her congregation...if you need her, she is available literally 24-7...she has been known to get up out of her bed in the wee hours of the morning because someone called and needed her.
It obviously is not a question of ability...and would God have gifted this lady with both the desire and the ability if He did not intend for her to do exactly what she is doing? Somehow, I very seriously doubt that.
We need good good leadership in our churches, and if God should call a woman to the role, should she demur, just because she has different genitalia than her brothers?

However, I'm a traditionalist (is that the right word?) when it comes to the male-female relationship. I like having my chair pulled out, or having doors opened for me...those little courtesies mean a lot to me. OTH...and please, I do not mean to brag...I have often wondered if it might have more to do with being a cute little blonde than it does my gender...I've seen the same guys who seem so eager to do these things for me not quite so eager to do them for other women who they don't see as being attractive...and that is just wrong. Ha! I suppose that, as I get older and really need those courtesies, those guys will be doing them for younger prettier women, and ignoring me.
Well, there's plenty of chivalry in this old man, sweetheart!
I'm very happy to hear it. It seems that most of our knights in shining armour are among the older generation.
But I digress. You say that Junia was not an apostle, but merely someone the apostles admired. I'm not so sure.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Was Andronicus an apostle? And what were Andronicus or Junia doing in prison, if they had not been preaching the gospel? Not that it was impossible I suppose, but I do wonder. They were both kinsmen of Paul's, and they were both Christians before Paul had had his Damascus experience. Presumably, Paul was not aware of that while he was on his rampage against Christians.
Anybody could be arrested just for being a Christian, one did not have to be an Apostle.


I suppose that's true...however, in order to get arrested, one would have to draw attention to themselves, don't you think?
Again, evidently these two had been Christians from the beginning, and somehow, Paul...or should I say Saul?...somehow he missed them when he was busy trying to stamp out the new movement among the Jews.
But, it seems that they managed to attract someone's attention, because there they were, in prison with Paul, who writes their names in his epistle, ensuring that they will be remembered for their faith throughout time.
Those folks named in that chapter, both male and female, had to have been pretty important to God, don't you think? I wouldn't take any one of them lightly....

Had they walked with Christ? Were they among the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost?

Come to think of it, how many of the 120, if any, were of the female persuasion?
Acts 1:12-14 lists the Apostles present, together with the women, but it doesn't say how many women were there. I'm sure there were a fair number. Why do you think Mary is the only woman mentioned by name?
If you slide up the page a bit, you will notice that, before Christ's ascension, He is among those He calls His apostles, to whom He promises that they will be baptized with the Holy Ghost:

Act 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Why is Mary the only woman named? Well, I should think that is obvious. She had the prominence, she was "blessed among women"...she was the most important woman there. She was the Mother of God.

Just some thoughts. Remember, I am not a Catholic. Now, if I totally agreed with the Catholic faith and doctrine, I would be a Catholic, don't you think?
I don't know. There are too many Catholics that don't agree with Catholic faith and doctrine because they are ill-informed. Hearing and acting on the will of God is what makes us all catholic, not blindly following rules, don't you think?
We have those in every denomination, my friend. Just as was prophecied, false teachers and false prophets have crept in among us. As always, Satan's main purpose is to lead away the children of God....
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
508
113
73
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
We have those in every denomination, my friend. Just as was prophecied, false teachers and false prophets have crept in among us. As always, Satan's main purpose is to lead away the children of God....

That's true, Permit me to digress.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. He never said the Church would not be attacked from within and from without. Obviously, she has, and there are many examples throughout history. But being attacked with false teachers and prophets, internally and externally, has never had any bearing on the Church's infallible teaching. If Satan were somehow elected Pope, he would do a lot of damage but could never teach an error, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't let him. That's why we call infallibility a negative charism.

Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability.
Isaiah 35:8 prophesied church leaders of "The Way" as a bunch of fools, but they will not teach error.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

Luke 10:16 Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ's infallible authority.

There is much more, but I'll leave it at that.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
74
...following a Jewish carpenter...
kepha31 said:
That's true, Permit me to digress.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. He never said the Church would not be attacked from within and from without. Obviously, she has, and there are many examples throughout history. But being attacked with false teachers and prophets, internally and externally, has never had any bearing on the Church's infallible teaching. If Satan were somehow elected Pope, he would do a lot of damage but could never teach an error, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't let him. That's why we call infallibility a negative charism.
Jesus says that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Now, I believe that His church is the entire body of believers, scattered through the different denominations...I don't believe at all that He meant the Catholic church exclusively.
Looking at it that way, the entire church has been attacked...and the saddest result of these attacks is that the church is divided.
Just the fact that you could think that there might be some way that Satan might be elected pope shows that the papal system has some flaws...and, as we talked about before there have been some evil popes...and they did do some damage. Did they teach error?
That's debatable. You say the Holy Spirit wouldn't let him...a lot of people have a lot to say about the Holy Spirit. I think that He resides within each of us, bringing to our hearts the teaching of Jesus Christ...but I don't think that He will exercise control over what comes out of our mouths.
I would submit that those evil popes, while they may have been Catholics, were not Christians.
Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability.
Isaiah 35:8 prophesied church leaders of "The Way" as a bunch of fools, but they will not teach error.
Isa 35:8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
Now, I would have said that this has to do with Jesus' narrow way that few will find, as opposed to the broad and well-traveled road the majority take.
To the world, those few who are "swimming upstream" (I get accused of this a lot) seem like a lot of fools.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.
You're going to hate me for this...but I don't think this was a gift just for the apostles, but for the whole church...the church that is spread out through the denominations, I mean.
You must know, of course, that I just cannot see Peter as a pope. He is my favorite apostle...or at least, he is closely tied with John for that honor...but I just do not see him as a pope.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.
The guarantee is for the entire church. I think we'd all be much better off if we'd stop trying to confuse what Christ came to simplify.

Luke 10:16 Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ's infallible authority.
If you read the entire thing, you will find that Jesus was sending out 70 people and gave them an assignment:

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
And these were the ones to whom He said:

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.



There is much more, but I'll leave it at that.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
74
...following a Jewish carpenter...
The Barrd said:
Jesus says that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Now, I believe that His church is the entire body of believers, scattered through the different denominations...I don't believe at all that He meant the Catholic church exclusively.
Looking at it that way, the entire church has been attacked...and the saddest result of these attacks is that the church is divided.
Just the fact that you could think that there might be some way that Satan might be elected pope shows that the papal system has some flaws...and, as we talked about before there have been some evil popes...and they did do some damage. Did they teach error?
That's debatable. You say the Holy Spirit wouldn't let him...a lot of people have a lot to say about the Holy Spirit. I think that He resides within each of us, bringing to our hearts the teaching of Jesus Christ...but I don't think that He will exercise control over what comes out of our mouths.
I would submit that those evil popes, while they may have been Catholics, were not Christians.
Isa 35:8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
Now, I would have said that this has to do with Jesus' narrow way that few will find, as opposed to the broad and well-traveled road the majority take.
To the world, those few who are "swimming upstream" (I get accused of this a lot) seem like a lot of fools.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

You're going to hate me for this...but I don't think this was a gift just for the apostles, but for the whole church...the church that is spread out through the denominations, I mean.
You must know, of course, that I just cannot see Peter as a pope. He is my favorite apostle...or at least, he is closely tied with John for that honor...but I just do not see him as a pope.

The guarantee is for the entire church. I think we'd all be much better off if we'd stop trying to confuse what Christ came to simplify.

If you read the entire thing, you will find that Jesus was sending out 70 people and gave them an assignment:

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
And these were the ones to whom He said:

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.



There is much more, but I'll leave it at that.
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,628
2,768
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I spent a college year also attending a Free Will Baptist church...

fwblogo.gif


The SHIP symbolizes the Church and represents all the members pulling in one direction, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
The FISH is one of the most popular symbols for a follower of Jesus Christ.
The ANCHOR on the bow of the ship symbolizes the Christian hope of salvation.
The BIBLE Free Will Baptists adopt the Word of God as our only rule of faith and practice.
The LOAF & CUP represent the Lord’s supper.
The BASIN & TOWEL representing the practice of washing the saints’ feet.
The CLASPED HANDS symbolize many things to us: fellowship, brotherhood and the warmth of our faith.

The basin and the towel... I will never forget the Spirituality of a foot washing service with the Free Will Baptist! Much love, warmth, joy, and shouting! I left every time with a clean feeling!

6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. - John 13

Like Peter I first resisted attending the foot washing service, but afterward, having such a clean sensation, I embraced this ordinance!
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
508
113
73
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Fantastic, Rocky. Are you SURE the emblem is not a graven image?





lol, just kidding.
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
76
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Bible is a historical as well as a spiritual book.

John 13:5-11

5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean

Are we to follow the literal meaning or is the washing of feet spiritual?

The word “wash” almost always mean “to cleanse”. In spiritual terms mean “to wash away sins”.

Note what Peter said, “thou shalt never wash my feet”. What was Jesus' answer? “If I wash thee not , thou hast no part with me”. If Jesus does not wash Peter's sins away he will not be a part of Him.

Just like if Jesus does not wash our sins we will never be His.

Peter said “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and feet.

Jesus replied, he that is washed need not have to wash his feet but is clean everywhere, and you are clean, but not all.

For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

I hope and and pray the explanation above helps.

To God Be The Glory