Featured New President of the SBC

I hope you realize that I haven't promoted a standard "social gospel" like you might hear about on Fox News. I am pointing directly to the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and the New Testament writers. In my previous response to you, I explicitly gave you scripture to demonstrate the kind of thing I mean by the social aspects of the gospel.

Your dispensationalism is failing you. The Kingdom of God is present today and is expanding. It has not yet reached its fullness, but it will at the end of the age. There is no difference between the gospel that Jesus preached (the Kingdom of God) and the gospel Paul preacher (the Kingdom of God). There is only ONE true gospel, and it comes from Jesus and is continued through the apostles, including Paul, the deacons, and all disciples. Just a glance at the Book of Acts demonstrates this:

• Philip preached the kingdom (Acts 8:12)
• Paul preached the kingdom (Acts 14:22; 19:8; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:23,31)

Paul also taught the kingdom in his letters (see Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13, 4:11).

Yeah, Peter Ruckman didn't like a lot of people and he enjoyed name calling and making false accusations because of his untransformed character. His personal life was a shambles and he did not display the fruit of the Spirit in his life. He also did not "rightly divide the word of truth," so if you are using him as a guide, you are in deep trouble.

I'm shocked that you have such poor Bible reading skills. Did you notice verse 9?

9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.​

Paul's instructions completely overturn the standard way of dealing with slaves. The master serves the needs of the slave, according to the way they want God to treat them.

The KJV translation (as well as many other translations) translates the Greek word γυναικὶ, which can be translated as either "wife" or, more generically "woman." It is unfortunate that the KJV translators selected "women" instead of "wives," which is obviously the proper translation, since we KNOW that women prophesied in the worship services (see 1 Corinthians 11:5), so Paul wouldn't contradict himself just three chapters later. But if you are a Ruckmanite, you believe that the version of the KJV (probably not the 1611 version) must have been translated correctly, so now you have a contradiction in your "perfect" Bible.

You took this passage out of context by leaving out the first verse in this passage:

Verse 21 sets the principle for the entire passage (Paul's revised version of the Greco-Roman household code), saying:

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

In the Greek, the verb to submit is NOT found in 5:22, but in 5:21. Verse 22 essentially says, "Wives to husbands" as the first example of what is means for persons to mutually submit to each other -- husbands to wives and wives to husbands.

You also omitted the rest of the teaching. Paul has much more to say to husbands than to wives. Husbands are to die to themselves for the good of their wives, and to love them as he loves his own life. He also must put his wife before his own father and mother:

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.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.​

You are correct. He was, if you read him carefully and not just cherry-pick verses to justify your own opinions.

I'm quite familiar with them. You don't seem to be familiar with them at all. Why don't you actually look up the passages I provided in my last post: Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 10:25-37; 1 John 3:16-18; James 2:14-17, 4:17-5:9. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

And that's your problem. You don't know your Bible, nor understand the gospel. You have been brainwashed by Ruckman and a weird dispensationalism that makes the words of Jesus irrelevant to your theology. Learn your Bible by reading it cover to cover - in context - without appealing to Ruckman or any other teacher. See what the Bible really says before you try to force it to fit your political and social opinions.

 

Do know that there are gender specific roles ordasined by God even in the Church, do know abortion is wrong, and also know that what those into getting us woked up and Blm and Crt is NOT biblical justice, but socialism and their brand of tyranny!

 

You clearly don't know the teachings of the New Testament. Here are just a few examples:

• Matthew 25:31-46
  
• Luke 10:25-37
  
• 1 John 3:16-18
  
• James 2:14-17, 4:17-5:9

Jesus didn't and Paul didn't, so I don't:

Galatians 3:26-29
For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.​

If they meet the requirements and demonstrate a calling, yes.

I have told you repeatedly and you don't accept it. Look at the verse I listed above.

This is incoherent.

I care nothing about "the media and liberals." I've been constantly pointing you to the Bible but you don't want to accept that and keep asking the same questions over and over to insinuate that I am not acting from biblical convictions.

Yes, and not only for the unborn, but those who have already been born. That's where folks like you suddenly shrink back from justice, because an unborn person costs you nothing and is more conceptual than real to your imagination. People who are born are expensive and take time and effort. You seem to be unwilling to life a finger for them, yet you wail and cry about the unborn. If you don't care about those who are born, you really don't care about the unborn either.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You rant about being "woke" (whatever that means -- I only use the term responding to you) and I think you are trying to lie again and claim I am for abortion. Don't be a liar.

 

The Bible teaches something else.

Don't be a liar.

Explain specifically what "woked up" means.

I never said it was. Don't be a liar.

 

A guy at SBC Voices put together some statistical information concerning the election of SBC presidents, going back about 20 years. Might be interesting to some of you.
A history of SBC presidential elections since 2000

 

Have you listened to or read any of his statements?

 

All are saved and have same spiritual rights and promises, are all part of the Body. does NOT mean that Gender roles though do not still exist!
And Jesus and Paul both ONLY saw men as qualified by Gender to be Pastor and Elders!

 

No, as only one I knew about running was Dr Mohler!

 

Abortion is sin, and getting woke up means must agree with the lie about systematic racism!

 

Not saying that you do, but those that have similiar views to yours do hold ti abortion as a good thing!

 

"...Neither male nor female..." means that gender is not an issue in terms of rights, promises, responsibilities, calling, and mission.

Nope.

In terms of the New Testament church, the Book of Acts shows a woman teaching Apollos (Prisca/Priscilla) in Acts 18:26. Phoebe, a female deacon (the masculine term, not "deaconess") carried Paul's letter to the church in Rome, probably reading it to them and explaining Paul's emphases and meaning. Junia was recognized as an apostle (Romans 16:7). In Luke 10:38-42, Mary was encouraged by Jesus to sit at His feet to hear him teach, just like the men (which violated Jewish gender roles), and defended her when her sister Martha complained. He received anointings of oil/perfume from one or more women, which was the traditional way kings and priests were inaugurated, with both Mark and John recording Jesus interpreting it in that way (Mark 14:8 and John 12:3). Those women violated gender roles and had religious agency that scandalized onlookers. Jesus scandalized His disciples by talking publicly to a Samaritan woman (John 4:8-9) who carried on a theological conversation with Jesus, leading to His most explicit statement that He was the Messiah recorded in all of the Gospels (John 4:25-26).

It's not a lie. It is obvious if you care to look at history and the legal barriers to inequality.

Can you explain to me what "redlining" is? Look it up and tell me. That's an obvious example of historical systematic racism that still has huge effects today.

People who hold your viewpoints beat their wives, molest children, hate minorities, and are cruel to animals. But that doesn't mean you do any of those things.

Why do you try to do the same thing to me and try to categorize me with people I don't agree with?

 

He is woke. Wants the SBC to continue down the woke path. Wants Convention to have a degree of authority over the churches that is not in line with tradition of SBC

 

NO female in the Bible in the NT assumed role of either pastor or Elder, and that is consistent with the make headship patterned all the way from Genesis forward!

 

And not the higher office of deacon either. It's quite plain in Scripture that there is a higher and lower office of Deacon.

 

I have truly never heard this. Please explain this distinction with scripture citations.

 

Answering the Key Questions About Deacons

Mac actually says three, but I kind of see the third as overlapping the second. At least 2. They are not exactly offices in the sense we have made them.

 

Thank you for a straightforward response. I disagree with MacArthur about as much as I agree with him. I was looking at the way Paul describes himself as a servant (diakonos), as well as Timothy, Tychicus, Epaphras, and Pheobe, as well as the way Philip and Stephan went immediately to preaching and doing works of power in the Book of Acts, instead of merely "serving" the widows. I knew there seemed to be a broad range of activities associated with deacons, but I have been chewing on that observation this week.

I need to take some time with MacArthur's essay to work carefully through his argument.

Thank you.

 

Those who argue against Male headship and Leadership are arguing against the Lord Himself, as he established that pattern and order!

 

The Pastor and Elders are the ones who were appointed as the spieirual leadership in local churches, and were all male!

 

Dr MacArthur one of the very best teachers, where do you disagree with him?