Does good parenting always matter? (Moved from FIC)

[Athanasius]

Athenasius,
Your reason to believe as you do is to empower those women who hold sway over you. That is not how God established the man-woman relationship.
Peter writes, Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands..." (1 Peter 3:1), and, "Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord,..." (1 Peter 3:6)
Women can prophesy, but there is a long stretch between prophesying and pastoring.
Show me one new testament teaching by a woman.
God's word says, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor 11:3) But the word of Athanasius is, "The woman is the head of man." Who do you think I'm going to believe?
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in EVERYTHING." (Eph 5:24) Seeing as you are subject to your wife, your church is not in subjection to Christ.

I'll need a clarification from you before I answer this post.

You referenced 1 Timothy 2:12, which is as follows (including verse 11):

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Is it your belief that Scripture permits women to prophesy in church (a form of teaching and, in some cases, correction), or is it your position that women ought to learn in silence and not teach (including prophesy)? If you could clarify your thoughts that would be much appreciated. I'm wondering how you reconcile your acknowledging that women can prophesy with Paul's apparent teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11 - 12, that women should be silent.

[Vhayes]

NASB
I John 3
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Ok. I'm about to become extremely unpopular again with all parties.

SIN has been paid for. Once for all. There is no further need to focus on sin. That party is over, that train has left the station.
I John 2
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.

The issue is, what do you DO with Jesus. Do you accept the gift He so willingly gives? Or do you stand on your own merits 'cause gee whiz, you're such a good guy/gal (generic you).

I would also remind all of us, myself included, that John started this same epistle with:
I John 1
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Ain't no one this side of heaven that has attained perfection. Jesus was the only perfect person ever born - sinless and without spot or blemish.

[PJW]

I'll need a clarification from you before I answer this post.

You referenced 1 Timothy 2:12, which is as follows (including verse 11):

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Is it your belief that Scripture permits women to prophesy in church (a form of teaching and, in some cases, correction), or is it your position that women ought to learn in silence and not teach (including prophesy)? If you could clarify your thoughts that would be much appreciated. I'm wondering how you reconcile your acknowledging that women can prophesy with Paul's apparent teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11 - 12, that women should be silent.

There is a difference between teaching and prophesy. Some prophesy is a warning, or a promise from God, even a prediction. Women are allowed to praise God and testify of things God has done for them since the last gathering. They may sing, but they are to be silent during teaching. If they have questions, they ask their husbands at home. If they are single, nothing forbids them from asking a question during an appropriate time. The church here is not so large that we can't discuss teachings informally, in a family setting, but things may have been different in the pre-bible churches.
God would not put a woman in the position of leader of a church in light of the new testament scriptures.

[Athanasius]

There is a difference between teaching and prophesy. Some prophesy is a warning, or a promise from God, even a prediction. Women are allowed to praise God and testify of things God has done for them since the last gathering. They may sing, but they are to be silent during teaching. If they have questions, they ask their husbands at home. If they are single, nothing forbids them from asking a question during an appropriate time. The church here is not so large that we can't discuss teachings informally, in a family setting, but things may have been different in the pre-bible churches.
God would not put a woman in the position of leader of a church in light of the new testament scriptures.

So you say.

Thanks for the clarification; I'll be able to respond to this, and your previous post, tomorrow at some point.

[PJW]

NASB
I John 3
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Ok. I'm about to become extremely unpopular again with all parties.

SIN has been paid for. Once for all. There is no further need to focus on sin. That party is over, that train has left the station.
I John 2
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.

The issue is, what do you DO with Jesus. Do you accept the gift He so willingly gives? Or do you stand on your own merits 'cause gee whiz, you're such a good guy/gal (generic you).

I would also remind all of us, myself included, that John started this same epistle with:
I John 1
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Ain't no one this side of heaven that has attained perfection. Jesus was the only perfect person ever born - sinless and without spot or blemish.

Your "interpretation" only leads to more people falsely believing they are in Christ.
If man CANNOT sin because God's seed REMAINETH in him, and he IS BORN OF GOD, (1 Jo 3:9) how can you throw in the word "practise"?
Remember the "fruit" parables by Jesus? A good tree (person) CANNOT bring forth evil fruit (sin)

[Vhayes]

Your "interpretation" only leads to more people falsely believing they are in Christ.
If man CANNOT sin because God's seed REMAINETH in him, and he IS BORN OF GOD, (1 Jo 3:9) how can you throw in the word "practise"?
Remember the "fruit" parables by Jesus? A good tree (person) CANNOT bring forth evil fruit (sin)

Been in an orchard lately? A fruit tree is fertilized to assure good growth. It is pruned when it has a branch that grows wild. No tree is planted and left alone to grow "good fruit" for the simple reason the fruit will be sickly and small.

By the way, I did not throw in the word "practice" - the translators did. Most translations have wording the same or similar to "practice".

[Slug1]

I'll let God answer, "Whosoever is born of God doth NOT commit sin; for His seed remaineth in Him: AND HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is NOT of God..." (1 Jo 3:9-10)
The first step of salvation after believing the "good news" is repentance. (Acts 2:38) If people sin, it means they have NOT repented.

You use the scripture NOT in context of the Bible but you are using that scripture IN the context of your belief... so I now ask this question to show you how your context is in error...

Why does Jesus chase after a sheep who has separated (begun to sin) themselves from the flock?

[Dani H]

Oh look, deja vu!

Move this over to Bible Chat ...

[Athanasius]

Your reason to believe as you do is to empower those women who hold sway over you. That is not how God established the man-woman relationship.

My reason is the correct interpretation and application of Scripture. In the future don't assume you know what my reasons are: ask.

Peter writes, Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands..." (1 Peter 3:1), and, "Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord,..." (1 Peter 3:6)

1 Peter 3 has nothing to do with respect to whether or not women can teach, or otherwise hold any sort of authority over men. The portion you've quoted concerns the marriage relationship between a man and a woman, and much of the letter, if not the entirety of the letter, is concerned with holy living. But as far as this holy living goes, there's nothing about prohibiting women from teaching.

Women can prophesy, but there is a long stretch between prophesying and pastoring.

That isn't what 1 Timothy 2:12 says:

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

It's also not what 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35 says:

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Show me one new testament teaching by a woman.

And if I can't, you take that as an indication that women shouldn't teach? This is interesting to consider:

John 20:16 - 18:

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Now compare that with 1 Corinthians 15:3 - 8:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Where is the mention of Mary? If latter accounts of the resurrection omit the mention of Mary, as John's gospel records, then what reason would we have to believe the new Testament would break the misogyny of ancient culture and record the teaching of women (short of Paul commending the women of Romans 16)? Now, the New testament also doesn't include any examples of women leading Sunday school; women's ministry, or the teaching of the majority of the Apostles -- is that an indication that we should diminish these other things? I'd hazard a guess and say that's not what Scripture is indicating.

God's word says, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor 11:3) But the word of Athanasius is, "The woman is the head of man." Who do you think I'm going to believe?

I'll let you quote to me where I said, 'the woman is the head of man'.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in EVERYTHING." (Eph 5:24) Seeing as you are subject to your wife, your church is not in subjection to Christ.

This is the marriage relationship again. You're off-topic with these verses.

There is a difference between teaching and prophesy. Some prophesy is a warning, or a promise from God, even a prediction. Women are allowed to praise God and testify of things God has done for them since the last gathering. They may sing, but they are to be silent during teaching. If they have questions, they ask their husbands at home. If they are single, nothing forbids them from asking a question during an appropriate time. The church here is not so large that we can't discuss teachings informally, in a family setting, but things may have been different in the pre-bible churches.
God would not put a woman in the position of leader of a church in light of the new testament scriptures.

Sure He would, and He has (maybe there are too many incompetent men in ministry).

[PJW]

You use the scripture NOT in context of the Bible but you are using that scripture IN the context of your belief... so I now ask this question to show you how your context is in error...

Why does Jesus chase after a sheep who has separated (begun to sin) themselves from the flock?

If the scriptures I use are not in biblical context, but I use them to prove that a man can live without sin, isn't that what God preordained? That we can obey Him? And isn't that of God's will?
Jesus chases the lost because they are lost. If lost man dies, he will end up in the lake of fire. Jesus doesn't want any to perish.

[PJW]

Been in an orchard lately? A fruit tree is fertilized to assure good growth. It is pruned when it has a branch that grows wild. No tree is planted and left alone to grow "good fruit" for the simple reason the fruit will be sickly and small.

By the way, I did not throw in the word "practice" - the translators did. Most translations have wording the same or similar to "practice".

Why are you listening to "translators" ? Why are you following a doctrine that is not absolutely anti-sin? There will be no part-time sinners in heaven.
Repenting of sin, means turn away from sin, or, change. Change from a sinner to a non-sinner. People who sin are not repentant, for each new sin shows that their last repentance was a lie.

[Slug1]

If the scriptures I use are not in biblical context, but I use them to prove that a man can live without sin, isn't that what God preordained? That we can obey Him? And isn't that of God's will?

Yes, any Christian can and WILL resist temptation and thus NOT sin when they apply their maturity of scripture, application of the Armor of God and walking in the Spirit. I agree because that is the proper context of scripture. Apply the scripture and walk in freedom, always resisting temptation.

However, the situation is how YOU judge a Christian who is a Christian due to their acceptance of Christ but they may not BE mature YET, don't know HOW to apply the Armor of God and thus, when they are tempted, fail to resist properly... and sin.

This is what this is all about... ARE THEY STILL A CHRISTIAN?

You still refuse to call the Corinthians Christians even after reading 1 Cor 1 where PAUL calls them Christians. You know... Paul, an Apostle and what we read by His hand is INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit so there is no error in what he says and/or writes??

It's a matter of accepting what the Bible's context is... not what you believe.

So far, you have avoided answering this yes or no, question... which reveals that you would rather put faith in what you believe rather then what the Bible is saying and what Paul wrote.

Only the Bible's context is correct and if you answer YES to the question, "are the Corinthians, Christians", then that YES... BLOWS your context out of the water... so far, you have not submitted to the Word of God and hold fast to the context you want to believe and this is evident in the stitching of specific scriptures into an assembled order that DOES say what YOU want the scriptures to say.

In proper context of the Bible, actually the context DOES align with you... but again, you refuse to accept that a Christian CAN fail to resist temptation and sin. If they do, you are calling them... NOT A CHRISTIAN. This is where YOUR context does NOT align with the FULL context of the Bible.

Paul counters your context in the simple declaration of calling the Corinthians, CHRISTIANS and thus, that is WHY you WILL NOT submit to the Word of God in the PROPER CONTEXT.

Because that will sink your context.

Only one context is correct and while you try to fight for yours... Paul is still calling the Corinthians in all their sinful ways... CHRISTIAN. Jesus is still going after that Christian who has sinned and thus wandered from the flock.

You just won't submit to the Word of God.

Jesus chases the lost because they are lost. If lost man dies, he will end up in the lake of fire. Jesus doesn't want any to perish.

No... the "sheep" is a SHEEP because they accepted Christ and have WANDERED away concerning the scripture I presented. A person who is "lost" in the context you just presented is a GOAT. The scripture is NOT about a goat, but about a sheep that has done something to cause them to WANDER away from the flock.

So this leads us back... IS a "sheep" or Christian who wanders away from the flock due to sin, A Christian?

If not... then why is Jesus seeking for the ONE who wandered away from HIM if the Christian isn't one of His anymore?

So this leads to another question... should a member of your church confess openly to the congregation that they failed and have sinned... are they gonna be treated as that sheep, then corrected and discipled as Paul did to the sinful Corinthians who had accepted Christ but were still sinning?

[Vhayes]

Why are you listening to "translators" ? Why are you following a doctrine that is not absolutely anti-sin? There will be no part-time sinners in heaven.
Repenting of sin, means turn away from sin, or, change. Change from a sinner to a non-sinner. People who sin are not repentant, for each new sin shows that their last repentance was a lie.

Soooo - you read the original Greek? Or do you use a translation as well?

Maybe it would be best if you tell me your definition of sin.

[Reynolds357]

Hmmmm, that is a pretty funny way of stating it. Seems to me that the entire parable is not about one child, but 2. Also seems to me that the father went and looked down the road every day, longing for his son to return to him. I also seem to remember that the second son stayed home with the father, and was upset when his father killed the fatted calf for a celebration dinner. And I do believe I was a prodigal child, wanting my share of the inheritance without doing any of the real work. Seems like I came back to my Father. Why don't you read the entire parable in Luke 15: 11-32? Better yet, let me place it here for you:


Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons.

The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

“Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living.
After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need.
So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs.
He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
“When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!
I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’ 20So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.b’
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate.
For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

“Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.
So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on.
‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him.
But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.
But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.
But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”


Show me where Jesus speaks of bad parenting there.



I am done with this discussion: I seem to forget that only people who have raised children to perfection should ever have them. And that I must not be educated enough to reply with doctrine, as I use emotion in it. Tell me Reynolds, PJW, et al who have had perfect children, raised them so unbelievably awesomely that we who have children who have made mistakes need to learn from you. You should replace Dr. Dobson, and the other Christian men and women who give advice about child rearing. Because, apparently, you have never had a child stray from the Lord. I guess you may also have never had someone abuse your children, not have they had to grow up during the first years of their lives when their father was an out of control drunk. Maybe I am missing the point, but for some reason I do not think so.

I said I was finished here earlier, and now I am. Remember, you are supposed to speak the truth IN LOVE. I do not see you two doing that. If you wish to say you could do better, then fine. If you want to say I am a terrible father because my children have strayed, then so be it. If you wish to say I did not try to teach my children like I was supposed to in Deuteronomy 4:9 and 11:19, or in Ephesians 6:4, then you have no idea what your speaking of. I understand what Proverbs 19:18 means, and I have read Deuteronomy 21:18. I followed Proverbs 13:24. And they know about Acts 2:38. They can even recite most of the verses I have listed here.

I am leaving this "discussion" now. And unless the Spirit moves me, I will not post here again.


CC

When studying the parables, you must keep in mind that Christ often used men who were at fault to demonstrate the love of His Father.
The Pridigal is not a parable about Child rearing; it is a parable about our Father who forgives those who are not worthy of being forgiven.

[Jeanne D]

MOD NOTE
Moving this thread to Bible Chat, where it will now be better suited.

Jeanne