The problem is with....?

[heartstrings]

This video came up in my FB feed yesterday.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1107674123753609

Thoughts?

Edited February 26 by heartstrings

[BrotherTony]

I can agree with his sentiment. Having been raised in a home where the father wouldn't take on his spiritual role as head of the family, and having a domineering mother in that area of our family life, we can see, comparing my family with that of a friend whose father DID take that position, my friends family grew up and now has nearly all kids and many grandkids, serving the Lord. My siblings and I have never been what we could have been had our father taken his role seriously. A Christian father should always take his leadership role in the family seriously. Too many haven't, and this is one reason society and churches today are in chaos.

[SureWord]

Adrian Rogers was a great preacher.

[BrotherTony]

3 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Adrian Rogers was a great preacher.

I can agree with that wholeheartedly. When I had walked away from everything for a period of time to recover from abusiveness in the churches my wife and I attended, I still listened to him, Dr. Tony Evans, Dr. Arno Weniger (then president of MBBC), and a couple of others. Their messages allowed me to heal, grow, and recover and move on with life as the Lord would have for me. 

[heartstrings]

This is one of the comments to the above video.  If the above lady has a job, does she tell the supervisor in authority "you're just the "leader" and then decide whether to "follow the  leader"? Or does that "leader" regularly give her "commands" which she is supposed to obey? 

Have you ever heard the saying "responsibility without authority is slavery, and authority without responsibility is tyranny"? For this not to be a total disaster you can't have one without the other. What say you?

 

 

 

[heartstrings]

"Rights"

So, here you have husbands, sitting out in this audience, who are being told that they have the primary responsibility, only token authority, and zero "rights". Not only that, but he just told these mens' wives and kids, sitting on the pews next to them, that Dad has no rights. Don't get me wrong, no one has the "right" to demand "rights" from anyone; I don't guess do they? But what about the things the Bible says are right? What about Mom "being in subjection to her own husband" and "submitting" and the kids obeying their parents(including Dad)? And what about "due benevolence". Is that the right thing to do for Dad? Is that part of the marriage "covenant"? Well, the Bible says it is "due". I don't have time to look up that word but I'm pretty sure it still means "due". Don;t the children have the right to be raised up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Don't wives have the right to be loved and honored by their husbands? But does the Bible say that Dad has to bear responsibility without authority and no rights? If it's there I haven't seen it. Like I said already, men have no "right to demand "rights" and neither should we desire to demand them. The World certainly indicates that husbands have no rights and they make it clear every time a man loses his home and his kids in the divorce and is left with nothing but the child support payments. Should the Church be doing the same?

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by heartstrings

[Jerry]

The Bible talks more about our responsibilities than our rights. To my understanding, rights are what we think/believe others owe us - responsibilities are what we owe to God and others. This is not stated to be argumentative, but for consideration (and because I don't have perfect memory of all the Bible), is not the emphasis in Scripture to do what we know to be right towards others (in obedience to God and His Word), rather than expecting others to be a certain way towards us? For example, there are commands for parents and commands for their children - but I do not think we ever find a command for the children to expect or demand certain things from their parents, wives from their husbands and vice versa - but rather commands of how THEY are to be and conduct themselves.

Yes, it is sad when a parent does not follow God in regards to their children, children to their parents, bosses to their employees, and vice versa, etc. - but that is why we are to rely on the Lord when others do not do right towards us, trusting that the Lord will work it all out for our good and will one day make it right. I think that our only rights are to claim what God has promised to His children - not what we think others should do or be towards us.**

**I am adding this by way of comparison: I have some family in the States who will not obey certain things in the Bible - because they feel their "rights" as US citizens are more important than their responsibilities towards God and His Word - yet we are accountable to what God has said and commanded more than what man has said or commanded (if they are not the same in a particular instance). We ought to obey God (rather than men), and seek to do His will, regardless of what rights others think we owe them (and yes, if God's Word commands us to act/behave a certain way as believers and citizens of Heaven, we should strive for that, trusting the Lord when others do not do the same towards us).

[heartstrings]

On 2/26/2024 at 4:43 PM, SureWord said:

Adrian Rogers was a great preacher.

I have long agreed with and enjoyed listening to Brother Rogers. But I still question men's teaching this subject in this way.  Where is it found in the Bible that "The problem is primarily with the husband"? Chapter and verse please? Did Paul and Peter teach it this way when addressing the family? How about Ephesians 5? I Peter 3?, Colossians 3, Titus 2?

The woman in the above comment says that the husband is not to be the "boss". Well, that's not what the Bible indicates. But a husband shouldn't have to 'assert' his headship/authority because the Bible already says it and the preachers should be preaching it, Instead they have watered it down to calling husbands a "leader". Sounds better that way doesn't it. Many wives/women say "well he's overbearing and unloving". Well, what are they doing about it? Is it right for him to be that way? Is it pleasing to the Lord for him to be that way? Is he obeying the word of God by not being unloving? Certainly not. But they can do something about it. Wives can be the "leader" for awhile until their husband "get's his act together". Actually, they can remain the leader in that respect as the following scripture says. It will not work any other way.

¹Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; ²While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. ³Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; ⁴But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. ⁵For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

This verse is basically saying that such a man is disobeying the word of God, but the wife can win him by using her power. Power? Yes, power.

Proverbs 14:1 says  Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.

That verse shows that a wife has the power/ability to build her house up and make something strong and beautiful. But she also possesses the power/ability to "pluck  it down" and destroy it.

The Bible teaches that both husband and wife are responsible for their family, both are accountable and it is unbiblical to put the "primary" blame and fault on one gender/spouse or the other. If the wife is being an "odious woman", "foolish" or "brawling woman in a wide house", the husband is still commanded to love her regardless. Same goes for the husband. If he is being unloving, "bitter", and overbearing, the wife is to take up her leadership role by submitting or "being in subjection". to him "in every thing" with  the "meek and quiet spirit". The "feminist" world hates this, but we are not supposed to be like the world. let me also say that the world regularly puts the blame on one gender/spouse too. But we are not supposed to preach it that way, no matter what man says so.

[HappyChristian]

8 hours ago, heartstrings said:

 

The Bible teaches that both husband and wife are responsible for their family, both are accountable and it is unbiblical to put the "primary" blame and fault on one gender/spouse or the other. If the wife is being an "odious woman", "foolish" or "brawling woman in a wide house", the husband is still commanded to love her regardless. Same goes for the husband. If he is being unloving, "bitter", and overbearing, the wife is to take up her leadership role by submitting or "being in subjection". to him "in every thing" with  the "meek and quiet spirit". The "feminist" world hates this, but we are not supposed to be like the world. let me also say that the world regularly puts the blame on one gender/spouse too. But we are not supposed to preach it that way, no matter what man says so.

I know a woman who would fit this category...her husband was a pastor (he's in Glory now). They had several kids (5 or 6, 1 girl the rest boys). I had several chats with one of the sons who himself is a pastor. Most of the children have nothing to do with her because of the way she was while they were growing up...I will not go into detail, but trust me that "odious" and "brawling" are apropos. Anyway...two of the kids (one being the daughter) are serving the Lord and have healthy marriages. The rest do not. This son told me that he learned about marriage from his dad, who he believes taught him - by his actions - just exactly what loving one's wife should be, regardless of how the wife is. I thought that was both the greatest compliment he could give his dad and the saddest thing ever.  

I agree that both parents are responsible. I do think that, because God placed man as the head, he has more of a burden. But I also believe that, once said child hits adulthood it is completely on that child to choose to do right. I've known many through the years who have served the Lord with all their hearts, even though they got NO teaching/encouragement from home to do so - whether from mom or dad.

That said, I think our young people need to have it impressed upon them the seriousness of having one or more eternal beings to nurture. I thank God often for the way my son and dil are raising their son (and will do with others if/as God sends them). Asher will be the one to make the choice whether or not he will submit to God. But he's got great parents to lead the way. (his Grandpa D's no slouch, either heehee)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 2/27/2024 at 11:00 AM, heartstrings said:

This is one of the comments to the above video.  If the above lady has a job, does she tell the supervisor in authority "you're just the "leader" and then decide whether to "follow the  leader"? Or does that "leader" regularly give her "commands" which she is supposed to obey? 

Have you ever heard the saying "responsibility without authority is slavery, and authority without responsibility is tyranny"? For this not to be a total disaster you can't have one without the other. What say you?

I would simply say -- The husband is the "head" of his wife in the same manner that Christ is the "Head" of the church.  However that might apply for Christ in relation to the church must have a similar application for the husband in relation to his wife.  So, is Christ just a "spiritual leader" for the church; or is Christ the "boss" of the church?

[heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I would simply say -- The husband is the "head" of his wife in the same manner that Christ is the "Head" of the church.  However that might apply for Christ in relation to the church must have a similar application for the husband in relation to his wife.  So, is Christ just a "spiritual leader" for the church; or is Christ the "boss" of the church?

I would say both.

Here's an English definition taken from https://www.etymonline.com/

 head (n.)

Old English heafod "top of the body," also "upper end of a slope," also "chief person, leader, ruler; capital city," from Proto-Germanic *haubid (source also of Old Saxon hobid, Old Norse hofuð, Old Frisian haved, Middle Dutch hovet, Dutch hoofd, Old High German houbit, German Haupt, Gothic haubiþ "head"), from PIE root *kaput- "head."

 

Physically, your "head" is the part which receives all information from the physical world. It takes in sights, sounds, smells etc. processes the information and makes decisions accordingly. It communicates decisions to the rest of the body and to the physical world and controls what the rest of the body does. But the head loves the rest of the body.  For example, the head loves that hand so much that if it ever, like, accidentally causes one hand to hit the thumb on the other hand with a hammer, the head is immediately going to experience the pain and go into action to assess the damage. The head, though it made a terrible mistake, still loves and cares for that hand/thumb and immediately begins to nurture that thumb/hand as best it can. So, even though the head is the "leader" and the "boss", it needs the rest of the body to survive, and it treats the rest of it's body with the utmost care and attention. The "hand", though intensely loved and appreciated by the head, is still "in subjection" to the head, goes where the head tells it, and obeys all communication from it. I mean, all parts of the body are just as important, but only one part can be "the head". I don't know...was that a good analogy? Thoughts?

 

^{Ephesians 5:}

²⁰ Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

²¹ Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

²² Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

²³ 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.

²⁴ Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

²⁶ That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

²⁷ That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

²⁸ So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

²⁹ For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

³⁰ For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 

 

Edited March 6 by heartstrings

[heartstrings]

On 2/27/2024 at 2:35 PM, Jerry said:

The Bible talks more about our responsibilities than our rights. To my understanding, rights are what we think/believe others owe us - responsibilities are what we owe to God and others. This is not stated to be argumentative, but for consideration (and because I don't have perfect memory of all the Bible), is not the emphasis in Scripture to do what we know to be right towards others (in obedience to God and His Word), rather than expecting others to be a certain way towards us? For example, there are commands for parents and commands for their children - but I do not think we ever find a command for the children to expect or demand certain things from their parents, wives from their husbands and vice versa - but rather commands of how THEY are to be and conduct themselves.

Yes, it is sad when a parent does not follow God in regards to their children, children to their parents, bosses to their employees, and vice versa, etc. - but that is why we are to rely on the Lord when others do not do right towards us, trusting that the Lord will work it all out for our good and will one day make it right. I think that our only rights are to claim what God has promised to His children - not what we think others should do or be towards us.**

**I am adding this by way of comparison: I have some family in the States who will not obey certain things in the Bible - because they feel their "rights" as US citizens are more important than their responsibilities towards God and His Word - yet we are accountable to what God has said and commanded more than what man has said or commanded (if they are not the same in a particular instance). We ought to obey God (rather than men), and seek to do His will, regardless of what rights others think we owe them (and yes, if God's Word commands us to act/behave a certain way as believers and citizens of Heaven, we should strive for that, trusting the Lord when others do not do the same towards us).

1 corinthians 9:

8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

What this is basically saying its that, as the ox which treads the corn has a right to eat of the corn, so those "who plow" should expect compensation for their efforts. Likewise, those who preach the gospel have the right to be "partakers" of "carnal things". I've heard this preached on many times by the same men who not infrequently tell the men in the pews that they "have no rights". On the contrary, "Rights" are things ordained by God and god alone. Our "Bill of Rights" for instance outlines things that are just "right" aka things "endowed by the Creator". I've already said, above, that it's not a favorable thing to be "demanding" rights for yourself. Who wants to have to "demand" something that is just "right"  when they could simply "plow in hope" for it? If there is a scripture to refute this, I would like to see chapter and verse.

[heartstrings]

I would also add, for clarification. Though it is the right thing to VOICE ones "rights" as Paul clearly did here in 1 Corinthians 9, it is best not demand them(as I said above) as the rest of that scripture shows..

15But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. 16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 17For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Even so, we are left with the fact that Paul still had the "right" to "reap carnal things"

[Behold]

On 3/6/2024 at 10:52 AM, heartstrings said:

I would also add, for clarification. Though it is the right thing to VOICE ones "rights" as Paul clearly did here in 1 Corinthians 9, it is best not demand them(as I said above) as the rest of that scripture shows..

15But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. 16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 17For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Even so, we are left with the fact that Paul still had the "right" to "reap carnal things"

 

Reader, 

It is God who gives the "power to get wealth" Deut 8...  for the purpose of establishing the covenant.

Now that is OT, and we are in the NT, and so..... you might think of it like this..

"Its costs to reach the lost".

One of the ways you reach them is by having a church building, and it has an Electric bill, and it has a roof that may need repair, and dont you like sitting in the AC in the Summer, in the Sanctuary?

I think you DO>..

Christians, or something like them, tend to get "weird" when you start talking about God wanting you to have money.

So, i dont wnat to get into a deep thing here regarding the tithe showing up before the Law showed up...

No need to chase that one..

But reader, If Paul tells you that "if you dont work, you dont eat" then he is referring to a PAY CHECK that buys the food., and it can be taught that he's referring to a "stay at home do nothing, slacker" who needs to be told to "get off the couch, turn off the X-Box and get a JOB".

 

And there is one more for you to consider.

Let say you really do believe in tithes and offerings, and certainly a group of Baptists will vote : YES.

So, isnt that about giving MONEY?

Then if that is true, does God not want you to have any, so that you can't tithe and offer some?

'Hello...mic check... is anyone out there?... Is that you Mr Crickets?.... Sure is quiet in HERE....

So....Here is what i can tell you.  ITs that the "poverty gospel" is worse then the "prosperity gospel", and that is because.

KJV .."POVERTY is the destruction of the poor"... not prosperity.

 

And just for fun... one more for you Reader...

Do you believe that God and Jesus would have YOU "give to the poor"? 

And if you are broke and believe that you are supposed to be, then how can you give them anything they need?.. Like Food?

"Well behold,.... money i dont have but that which i do have, i'll give them". Just like Peter said.

Uh huh.

Well, you're not Peter, and when Pete had the money, then he gave to the poor.

Believe it.

 

 

 

Edited March 11 by Behold

[heartstrings]

Brother "Behold" that was not the point. The point was to give a Biblical example of a Godly man voicing "rights" to one thing or another. In verses 8-14, shown above, Paul was basically saying that those who preach the gospel have the right to "reap carnal things" aka accepting worldly goods etc.. just like it's "right" to not muzzle the ox which treads the corn. Then I showed how Paul did not exercise that right for the sake of the gospel. Likewise, just because a spouse does not "demand" certain rights within a marriage, does not mean those rights do not still exist and it does not mean it is wrong to make certain "rights" known, as Paul did.

Edited March 20 by heartstrings