Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 9:42:02 GMT -5
Such an excellent point about false piety sister. That is even a characteristic of self-righteousness, if we try to be MORE "righteous" than what God actually requires. It can be a kind of back-handed way of flesh exalting itself....above and beyond the will of God. We just need to seek His will for our lives and walk in it. Settle it in our hearts that we have no righteousness of our own and don't need to....because Jesus died for us in spite of our undeservedness...and that is what mercy means, and why He is exalted.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Sept 15, 2018 10:06:34 GMT -5
Such an excellent point about false piety sister. That is even a characteristic of self-righteousness, if we try to be MORE "righteous" than what God actually requires. It can be a kind of back-handed way of flesh exalting itself....above and beyond the will of God. We just need to seek His will for our lives and walk in it. Settle it in our hearts that we have no righteousness of our own and don't need to....because Jesus died for us in spite of our undeservedness...and that is what mercy means, and why He is exalted. Faith that pleases God, and does not go against His will. And it is by faith, being led by the Spirit and not by the letter.
That is how I believe we grow more into the righteousness of Christ, it is by faith, not by the letter.
"...that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." - Romans 7:6
An example of self righteousness, of someone being led by the letter is that he or she seeks to live in a way and force others to do the same.
And by doing this, they believe what they have learned by the letter is what God wants for them.
As a result, the person is not joyful in their lives most of the time, they are more worried in not changing the lifestyle as moving more to sacrifice themselves.
It is a form of sacrifice, in a deadly manner, not of faith. Because the letter kills.
The person goes beyond the faith, and is forced to do things by the letter. And all this person is taught, they believe it is God's will and they want to force on others.
"Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." - 2 Corinthians 3:17
When people lives by faith, being led by the Spirit, they will have much more moments of joy than of sadness and suffering.
The Spirit gives joy when we are obeying Him, and living according to the will of God.
"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." - Matthew 11:30
Everything the person does or are encouraged to seek, are the result of faith working through love.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." - Galatians 5:6
From the Spirit's understanding of Scriptures; and not from the letters itself, which only leads to unmerciful behavior and self seeking.
"Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." - Matthew 16:6
And when I say love, I say the love that comes from God.
"Abstain from every form of evil." - 1 Thessalonians 5:22
"Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." - Luke 6:36
"...put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts." - Romans 13:14
Blessings to you in Jesus' name!
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 15, 2018 10:22:05 GMT -5
We haven't even started on Christians in bondage who become vampires to the rest of the church. When you find yourself buying groceries for the same family for the upteenth time because they think money is pixie dust, that gets old.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 15, 2018 11:06:57 GMT -5
The subject of dead-beat Christians is actually a perfect circle back to celibacy. Please bear with me while I try to thread this needle.
Here are Paul's words about celibate women:
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)
A woman is under the head of her father (or parental figure) until she marries. In this passage, the father is choosing whether his daughter should stay in his household or not. Her wishes are a factor, but she cannot force her father to endorse a marriage, and neither can she demand to live with him if he thinks marriage is best.
So then what? The woman moves out because she doesn't like her father's choice? Now she must take on Adam's burden and be her own head of household, which isn't God's design. Her father is her head until she marries. That doesn't mean her father can abuse her, but he is supposed to be the breadwinner for his daughters until they get married. If the father dies, she should depend on a brother or cousin until marriage (the Old Testament law laid this out) -- failing this she should devote herself to the church and be under a pastor.
The last thing a woman should do is to go around being a loose canon with no man in her life whatsoever. Been there, done that, and it descends into feminism/hatred toward men at lightning speed.
Let's look at what else Paul said about unmarried women:
At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. (1 Timothy 5:13-15)
A woman with no male role in her life is in great danger. Paul wanted every woman to have a head of household.
Only those women with no other option were allowed to expect their income on the church's dime. And I personally do not believe this applies only to living in a formal church shelter. If an unmarried woman with a low-income job is constantly expecting charity from her Christian friends to get by, she's living on the church's dime.
Corrie Ten Boom lived with her father until she went to prison, and she was "married" to the Jewish refugee crisis. Queen Elizabeth depended heavily on an elder male advisor who was like her uncle (because her father was dead), and she was married to England. Esther obeyed Mordecai. Joan of Arc lived with her parents while she was married to France. Every woman needs to have the marriage experience and also have a man in her life. This is Bible teaching and made manifest in the lives of Christian women.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 15, 2018 12:14:45 GMT -5
Though I believe anyone can ask for that grace/gift if they have a desire for that kind of devotion to the Lord, coming from pure untainted motives…..just as we can ask for any gift. I believe anyone can receive that.
The problem is that the person needs to break unbelief, they must believe it can be achieved.
"...With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." - Matthew 19:26
And another barrier to be broken is that the person must acknowledge it is not the ideal.
Seriously, giving up to masturbation is a weakness; the person has little to no control, and they surrender to the flesh.
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." - Romans 12:21
"...All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." - 1 Corinthians 6:12
There is no real need for masturbating. People who invent excuses are just deceiving themselves.
It is much better to live without doing it. And I can tell this by experience.
Now, the possibility is there. But one must have the faith to claim it.
And no, this has nothing to do with word of faith movement. You have a real need, and you need faith anyway.
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." - Matthew 7:7
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him..." - Hebrews 11:6
And I believe that sex is not the only reason for marriage. Seriously, are people marrying just to have sex?!
Definitely not ideal. Abstinence is the ideal, and should be pursued. Simply doing that because one has no self control is not acceptable. However, I wouldn't take that to the extreme and say that it's never acceptable either (I didn't say ideal). I also would definitely not say that it's a guarantee that in every case that a person is actually called by God to a life of celibacy (not self-imposed celibacy for some self-righteous reason) that God will always provide the person with grace to overcome that biological urge, or that it is always necessary to do so. Every case is different. I don't know every person's situation or why God might give one peace to do something and another grace to abstain from it, but whichever the case is, He knows the reason.
I would be careful of making things simpler than they are, based on one's own experience (and not just in this matter). I don't want to do that either. There's never any excuse for sin, but there may be cases in which that is not sin. When it is sin, God most certainly will provide the person grace to not do it; but if it is not sin in a particular case, He might not do so because it is acceptable. Whether it is or isn't really must be known to God and the individual. And if it is sin, I've no doubt that God will correct the person in the matter---provided his or her heart is humble and sincere---and give him or her grace to do what His will is. (Any Christian's whose preference is to do that rather than to abstain just needs more self-control from God and a correction of heart in the matter.)
But getting married just to have sex is a terrible reason to do so, and thinking that God wants you to marry just because you have a biological sexual urge is seriously misguided. If a person has purposed to fast, will he or she not be hungry? The person's body may be telling them to eat, but the person him or herself doesn't want to, and breaking the fast to eat before the decided time, merely because of the body, would not be because God willed him or her to break it, but a matter of necessity due to a physical need. If a woman's body is telling her that she needs to reproduce, but the woman herself has no desire to marry or to be a mother and doesn't feel led of God to do so, should she get married for her body's sake? Whether God takes a person's biological sexual urge away or enables him or her to overcome it when it arises, or whether He permits the person to relieve it in some cases, the person him or herself does not desire the urge, nor does he or she desire to marry. Wanting relief from an unwanted biological urge and wanting to marry are completely different things.
At the same time, if a person is pining away to be married (not just bothered by a biological sexual urge), he or she obviously isn't called to be celibate, and should probably be asking God to bring a man or woman into his or her life to marry. But I don't believe it's good counsel to tell a person that he or she should get married just because he or she has a biological sexual urge, or to discourage them from a life of celibacy if that is what they truly desire and believe is God's will for them just because they have that biological urge. Abstinence is the ideal, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there are never cases in which relieving the urge isn't sin and is acceptable for an individual by faith. It's a matter of conscience toward God. To say that any Christian who ever relieves that urge is simply incontinent or lustful in his or her heart is painting everyone with the same brush and probably oversimplifying the issue.
That said, I agree with BUTERO that this is not the subject of this thread (although it is not entirely unrelated to it); and since the first thread was deleted by the Administrators, we probably shouldn't make this one into a discussion on that, or it may be deleted also.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 15, 2018 12:38:15 GMT -5
The name-and-claim mistake in faith doesn't just go in one direction. It isn't always about money, ambition, etc. Misguided Christians can just as easily name-and-claim a lifestyle of poverty, bondage, loneliness, etc which God might not will for them. If God has put a proper, healthy desire in a person which doesn't go away with prayer and fasting, doesn't seem to lessen over time, and would obviously help him be more fruitful in ministry, he should probably take it as a message that God wills it for his life. It isn't wise to double down on a life of false piety when God isn't giving grace to be happy that way. This is part of how God shows us His will. Yes we all sacrifice for the Kingdom, but if you "sacrifice" to the point that you're miserable, alone, fruitless, powerless, and unable to relate to others, there is a problem. Paul built numerous churches in various cities. He closely mentored future pastors. He was too busy for marriage, and he didn't seem to feel sad about it. That's what life should be like for a man called to celibacy. He is "married" to a very fruitful ministry. A man in this situation will know he doesn't want a wife. If Paul's calling is not placed on a man, he cannot name-and-claim that he doesn't want to marry. A great supply of faith is actually needed to move ahead into a new life when God calls you to go. He tells you to start a business and He will send the customers; you're terrified, but you do it, and He provides. He tells you to buy a house and He will provide for it as His own property; you're terrified, but you do it, and He pays the bills. He tells you to find a wife because you're called to raise righteous children in a wicked world; you're terrified, but you get married. Living alone in a tent to prove your piety is not the best definition of faith. So no, a man should not marry the first girl who says yes in order to have sex -- and Paul's words didn't say that. If a man cannot seem to be happy alone, and the burning won't stop no matter how much he tries, then he should patiently look for a virtuous woman he can love. I agree. It is not faith to take upon oneself a lifestyle or a calling that God has not given to one. And when it is God's will for a person to do something, He supplies that person with everything necessary to do it---which is part of how we know that it is His will. There's nothing commendable to God about a person taking on a life that God has not actually called him to---which would be self-serving in reality, the person's own will for his or her own reasons rather than God's for God's reasons. At the same time, if a person knows by actual faith that it is God's will for him or her to be celibate, I don't think that that faith will necessarily be void of any struggles---that the person will never be lonely, or that the person will never have biological urges, however he or she deals with these. If the person is continually struggling with a biological urge that won't go away, even with prayer, it may not necessarily be the case that the person isn't meant to be celibate. They could just have a hormonal imbalance. I can't say how God might deal with that; but every Christian's situation is different, and each person has to know for him or herself what God's will for him or her is personally. Nobody else can tell them that, although they can give them counsel in the matter. Ultimately the individual has to know this for him or herself, because it is according to that---not other people's convictions---that each of us will be judged. Genuine personal faith is more than just trust; it's a spiritual assurance of God's will for one, which comes with certainty. It's not merely a person's own desire. And to go against that conviction, in any matter, would not be faith but sin.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Sept 15, 2018 12:42:59 GMT -5
Abstinence is the ideal, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there are never cases in which relieving the urge isn't sin and is acceptable for an individual by faith. It's a matter of conscience toward God. To say that any Christian who ever relieves that urge is simply incontinent or lustful in his or her heart is painting everyone with the same brush and probably oversimplifying the issue. If the person's decision is to abstain, then seek to abstain.
"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." - Matthew 5:37
I would not say to someone who has a weakness to stab people that it is OK to stab random people just to get rid of the urge.
It is better if they stopped stabbing people completely, if they indeed want to stop stabbing people.
If people want to be free, there is an option. And it requires faith to advance to the next level.
For example, I would not overcome my fear of going out if I did not decide to take the next step when the opportunity came.
I had to get out of my comfort zone, it was not easy, but it was much easier than I thought. And it was a success, thanks to God.
Now, if the person really want to abstain from a practice. Seek the next level, go out of comfort zone, seek to endure longer and longer; purify your hearts.
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." - Matthew 15:19
When you fail, when you have reached your limit. Then pray to God, ask more self control, and He will grant it to you.
That is how faith increases, and God will shed more of His love in the heart so you will want to endure even longer.
And obviously, when working through love it is no longer a burdensome task.
And soon it will no longer be burdensome, and earlier than expected.
Blessings in Jesus' name!
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 15, 2018 13:50:28 GMT -5
The subject of dead-beat Christians is actually a perfect circle back to celibacy. Please bear with me while I try to thread this needle. Here are Paul's words about celibate women: But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)A woman is under the head of her father (or parental figure) until she marries. In this passage, the father is choosing whether his daughter should stay in his household or not. Her wishes are a factor, but she cannot force her father to endorse a marriage, and neither can she demand to live with him if he thinks marriage is best. So then what? The woman moves out because she doesn't like her father's choice? Now she must take on Adam's burden and be her own head of household, which isn't God's design. Her father is her head until she marries. That doesn't mean her father can abuse her, but he is supposed to be the breadwinner for his daughters until they get married. If the father dies, she should depend on a brother or cousin until marriage (the Old Testament law laid this out) -- failing this she should devote herself to the church and be under a pastor. The last thing a woman should do is to go around being a loose canon with no man in her life whatsoever. Been there, done that, and it descends into feminism/hatred toward men at lightning speed. Let's look at what else Paul said about unmarried women: At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. (1 Timothy 5:13-15)A woman with no male role in her life is in great danger. Paul wanted every woman to have a head of household. Only those women with no other option were allowed to expect their income on the church's dime. And I personally do not believe this applies only to living in a formal church shelter. If an unmarried woman with a low-income job is constantly expecting charity from her Christian friends to get by, she's living on the church's dime. Corrie Ten Boom lived with her father until she went to prison, and she was "married" to the Jewish refugee crisis. Queen Elizabeth depended heavily on an elder male advisor who was like her uncle (because her father was dead), and she was married to England. Esther obeyed Mordecai. Joan of Arc lived with her parents while she was married to France. Every woman needs to have the marriage experience and also have a man in her life. This is Bible teaching and made manifest in the lives of Christian women. Mmm...I think it's a bit of an over-generalization to say that all single women who have no man in their life are or become feminist man-haters, or that they are all loose cannons, running around doing whatever they please---generally evil---and sponging off of the resources of the church. (Really, sister?) Does the Lord only guide women who have a man in their life? Does He not also guide those who do not? If they are single, they should be following Him in submission to His authority in their lives and doing His will.
I know it was the tradition of previous generations and societies for women who did not marry to live with their parents, and that their father was their authority until they married and provided for them (part of the reason their fathers wanted to marry them off); and unmarried women cared for their parents in their old age. Sometimes they worked with their fathers in a family business. That was the way it worked; but obviously, times have changed and that is not always the way things work today. And not all cases are the same either. I don't believe that it's always God's will for an adult unmarried woman to live with her father; that's something she would have to know by faith, whether it is or isn't. Sometimes it may not even be possible. But the pastor does not take the role of her spiritual head if she is unmarried and not in her father's household. The New Testament doesn't teach this.
It does teach that the head of every man in the church (not of every woman) is Christ, and that the head of every married woman is her husband. In every case in which a woman's spiritual head is referred to, it is with regard to husbands and wives, not daughters and fathers. The wife is a part of her husband's body just as the church (the brothers) is Christ's body.
In Biblical times, unmarried women lived in their fathers' households unless they married, and their father was their authority because they lived with him and he provided for them, and he filled the role of a spiritual authority---or else another near male relative. (This is what I understand.) It wasn't the custom for unmarried women to live alone or to provide for themselves. It just wasn't the way society worked back then---or even up until recent centuries.
But society has changed, and while I am anti-feminism, I do believe that Scriptural teachings sometimes (not always) have to be considered in the light of the way things are today. That way of doing things just doesn't work for most people today, for various reasons. Most fathers would probably be indignant at the thought of having to support an unmarried daughter, and would tell her she needed to get a job. He might not want her to live with him either. Not all women have fathers, or male relatives who would fill that role. And, obviously, not all fathers or male relatives of a Christian woman are Christians and would be willing to follow Christian rules. A woman's father might be of some other religion with different rules. In the OT example, everyone to whom that arrangement pertained was of the same religion. It would be like America being Christian (which it isn't), and a theocracy, with everyone living according to the teachings of Christianity. Christians have no such nation today as the Jews had, where everyone in that society lived by the same religious laws.
Every Christian's personal situation is different, and every Christian woman has to do whatever she knows the Lord's will for her to be---which is hardly the same as being a "loose cannon".
Paul never said anywhere that he wanted every woman to have a male head of household. He told Timothy not to enroll the younger widows (under the age of 60) in the church distribution, because, according to their whims, they would eventually want to get married---not because it was the Lord's will for them to, but just because they wanted to, which would have been a breach of faith for someone who had purposed to remain single after her husband died, and was put on the dole with that expectation and commitment. Then he said that if these young women were put on the dole (rather than devoting themselves to charitable works) they would become idle gossips, going about from house to house. So it was better that they marry and have a husband provide for them than rely on the church to do so. Whenever Paul recommended marriage for a woman, it was always as an alternative to something less desirable, whether it was ungodly behavior (as in the case of the widows he mentioned in 1 Timothy 5), or divided devotion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
I will also add that Corrie Ten Boom and her father were both Christians (Mr. Ten Boom was a devout Christian), Esther and Mordecai were both Jews, and that Queen Elizabeth and Joan of Arc and their lives really have nothing to do with Christian women and the Bible's instructions for them. Joan of Arc was definitely not following the Lord's commands (if she was even a true Christian), and Queen Elizabeth was an ungodly woman who was also definitely not following Jesus Christ---whatever those women may have thought or what others may have thought about them. (That's like Christian men using the Crusaders as an example of something for the church.)
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 15, 2018 14:20:11 GMT -5
Our disagreements continue to stem from deeply-held philosophical views. We do not agree on fundamental concepts of the female psyche. This manifests in arguments over ancillary Bible verses, which cannot change an entire worldview.
I’ve seen too many anointed Christian women self-destruct because of a poor understanding on their relation to men. They can get by pretty well for a while, but the damage is done eventually. My heart breaks. This is absolutely playing with fire.
But, it is what it is, and I cannot make you believe me.
Be safe.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 15, 2018 14:28:07 GMT -5
Abstinence is the ideal, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there are never cases in which relieving the urge isn't sin and is acceptable for an individual by faith. It's a matter of conscience toward God. To say that any Christian who ever relieves that urge is simply incontinent or lustful in his or her heart is painting everyone with the same brush and probably oversimplifying the issue. If the person's decision is to abstain, then seek to abstain.
"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." - Matthew 5:37
I would not say to someone who has a weakness to stab people that it is OK to stab random people just to get rid of the urge.
It is better if they stopped stabbing people completely, if they indeed want to stop stabbing people.
If people want to be free, there is an option. And it requires faith to advance to the next level.
For example, I would not overcome my fear of going out if I did not decide to take the next step when the opportunity came.
I had to get out of my comfort zone, it was not easy, but it was much easier than I thought. And it was a success, thanks to God.
Now, if the person really want to abstain from a practice. Seek the next level, go out of comfort zone, seek to endure longer and longer; purify your hearts.
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." - Matthew 15:19
When you fail, when you have reached your limit. Then pray to God, ask more self control, and He will grant it to you.
That is how faith increases, and God will shed more of His love in the heart so you will want to endure even longer.
And obviously, when working through love it is no longer a burdensome task.
And soon it will no longer be burdensome, and earlier than expected.
Blessings in Jesus' name!I agree, and I believe that that is good counsel. The point of what I posted was not that it's ever acceptable to sin, but that there may be cases in which it is not sin. Even in such a case that would not be the ideal, but a last resort or a concession---and that only with the faith to do so (which God doesn't give people to do what is sinful). Nobody is going to receive "faith" to stab someone, or to commit adultery, or to beat his wife, or to fornicate, or to get drunk---or to do the thing in question if the person would be sinning by doing it. I'm not making any allowances for sin, only saying that there may be cases in which doing that particular thing is not sin. People are free to disagree with me about that, but I do believe that it's a matter of individual faith between every Christian and God, what they do and what He does for them and why or why not, in this particular matter. Nevertheless, it's better to encourage abstinence by grace and to give God the opportunity to do whatever He's going to do than to encourage the other by faith. Sin is never an option, but option one is better than option two (if option two is permissible by God for an individual for some reason), and it's better to pursue option one than to resort to option two. If God does give a Christian faith to do option two, it would be an allowance on His part, according to His knowledge of that person and the particulars of that person's situation. He doesn't make allowances for sin. But this may not always be one. Only God really knows. If it is a sin, and the Christian believes it isn't, He will definitely convict the Christian of that and correct him or her---unless that Christian's heart is just set on him or herself and sin.
|
|
|
Post by Abby-Joy on Sept 15, 2018 14:35:57 GMT -5
Our daughters are ages 19, 23, and 24 (soon to be 25). They all live on their own... the younger 2 are roommates with another friend their age. They all support themselves, and yet, they are still under our cover. My husband has often given financial assistance when needed (bills, vehicle care, groceries, etc), and they are all on our medical insurance through his work. We still pay the cell phone bill for our youngest daughter. I know times have changed, but we still see it as our responsibility to provide if needed. (And that mostly falls on my husband, their father.) My preference would be that they lived nearby, but they're all 4 to 5 hours away.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 15, 2018 14:53:01 GMT -5
Our daughters are ages 19, 23, and 24 (soon to be 25). They all live on their own... the younger 2 are roommates with another friend their age. They all support themselves, and yet, they are still under our cover. My husband has often given financial assistance when needed (bills, vehicle care, groceries, etc), and they are all on our medical insurance through his work. We still pay the cell phone bill for our youngest daughter. I know times have changed, but we still see it as our responsibility to provide if needed. (And that mostly falls on my husband, their father.) My preference would be that they lived nearby, but they're all 4 to 5 hours away. I don't think this is the same thing that PG4Him was talking about. Many fathers do this sort of thing for their adult unmarried daughters---especially when they're under 30 and getting established in an independent life. I think what she was speaking about was a kind of God-ordained authority structure for unmarried women, in which fathers or other adult relatives make decisions for their unmarried adult daughters and are essentially substitute husbands for them.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 15, 2018 15:08:18 GMT -5
The subject of dead-beat Christians is actually a perfect circle back to celibacy. Please bear with me while I try to thread this needle. Here are Paul's words about celibate women: But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)A woman is under the head of her father (or parental figure) until she marries. In this passage, the father is choosing whether his daughter should stay in his household or not. Her wishes are a factor, but she cannot force her father to endorse a marriage, and neither can she demand to live with him if he thinks marriage is best. So then what? The woman moves out because she doesn't like her father's choice? Now she must take on Adam's burden and be her own head of household, which isn't God's design. Her father is her head until she marries. That doesn't mean her father can abuse her, but he is supposed to be the breadwinner for his daughters until they get married. If the father dies, she should depend on a brother or cousin until marriage (the Old Testament law laid this out) -- failing this she should devote herself to the church and be under a pastor. The last thing a woman should do is to go around being a loose canon with no man in her life whatsoever. Been there, done that, and it descends into feminism/hatred toward men at lightning speed. Let's look at what else Paul said about unmarried women: At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. (1 Timothy 5:13-15)A woman with no male role in her life is in great danger. Paul wanted every woman to have a head of household. Only those women with no other option were allowed to expect their income on the church's dime. And I personally do not believe this applies only to living in a formal church shelter. If an unmarried woman with a low-income job is constantly expecting charity from her Christian friends to get by, she's living on the church's dime. Corrie Ten Boom lived with her father until she went to prison, and she was "married" to the Jewish refugee crisis. Queen Elizabeth depended heavily on an elder male advisor who was like her uncle (because her father was dead), and she was married to England. Esther obeyed Mordecai. Joan of Arc lived with her parents while she was married to France. Every woman needs to have the marriage experience and also have a man in her life. This is Bible teaching and made manifest in the lives of Christian women. Mmm...I think it's a bit of an over-generalization to say that all single women who have no man in their life are or become feminist man-haters, or that they are all loose cannons, running around doing whatever they please---generally evil---and sponging off of the resources of the church. (Really, sister?) Does the Lord only guide women who have a man in their life? Does He not also guide those who do not? If they are single, they should be following Him in submission to His authority in their lives and doing His will.
I know it was the tradition of previous generations and societies for women who did not marry to live with their parents, and that their father was their authority until they married and provided for them (part of the reason their fathers wanted to marry them off); and unmarried women cared for their parents in their old age. Sometimes they worked with their fathers in a family business. That was the way it worked; but obviously, times have changed and that is not always the way things work today. And not all cases are the same either. I don't believe that it's always God's will for an adult unmarried woman to live with her father; that's something she would have to know by faith, whether it is or isn't. Sometimes it may not even be possible. But the pastor does not take the role of her spiritual head if she is unmarried and not in her father's household. The New Testament doesn't teach this.
It does teach that the head of every man in the church (not of every woman) is Christ, and that the head of every married woman is her husband. In every case in which a woman's spiritual head is referred to, it is with regard to husbands and wives, not daughters and fathers. The wife is a part of her husband's body just as the church (the brothers) is Christ's body.
In Biblical times, unmarried women lived in their fathers' households unless they married, and their father was their authority because they lived with him and he provided for them, and he filled the role of a spiritual authority---or else another near male relative. (This is what I understand.) It wasn't the custom for unmarried women to live alone or to provide for themselves. It just wasn't the way society worked back then---or even up until recent centuries.
But society has changed, and while I am anti-feminism, I do believe that Scriptural teachings sometimes (not always) have to be considered in the light of the way things are today. That way of doing things just doesn't work for most people today, for various reasons. Most fathers would probably be indignant at the thought of having to support an unmarried daughter, and would tell her she needed to get a job. He might not want her to live with him either. Not all women have fathers, or male relatives who would fill that role. And, obviously, not all fathers or male relatives of a Christian woman are Christians and would be willing to follow Christian rules. A woman's father might be of some other religion with different rules. In the OT example, everyone to whom that arrangement pertained was of the same religion. It would be like America being Christian (which it isn't), and a theocracy, with everyone living according to the teachings of Christianity. Christians have no such nation today as the Jews had, where everyone in that society lived by the same religious laws.
Every Christian's personal situation is different, and every Christian woman has to do whatever she knows the Lord's will for her to be---which is hardly the same as being a "loose cannon".
Paul never said anywhere that he wanted every woman to have a male head of household. He told Timothy not to enroll the younger widows (under the age of 60) in the church distribution, because, according to their whims, they would eventually want to get married---not because it was the Lord's will for them to, but just because they wanted to, which would have been a breach of faith for someone who had purposed to remain single after her husband died, and was put on the dole with that expectation and commitment. Then he said that if these young women were put on the dole (rather than devoting themselves to charitable works) they would become idle gossips, going about from house to house. So it was better that they marry and have a husband provide for them than rely on the church to do so. Whenever Paul recommended marriage for a woman, it was always as an alternative to something less desirable, whether it was ungodly behavior (as in the case of the widows he mentioned in 1 Timothy 5), or divided devotion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
I will also add that Corrie Ten Boom and her father were both Christians (Mr. Ten Boom was a devout Christian), Esther and Mordecai were both Jews, and that Queen Elizabeth and Joan of Arc and their lives really have nothing to do with Christian women and the Bible's instructions for them. Joan of Arc was definitely not following the Lord's commands (if she was even a true Christian), and Queen Elizabeth was an ungodly woman who was also definitely not following Jesus Christ---whatever those women may have thought or what others may have thought about them. (That's like Christian men using the Crusaders as an example of something for the church.) I see a real serious error here. The Bible is either God's Word or it is not. If it is God's Word, tradition did not influence it's pages. If tradition influenced it's teachings, then it is not God's Word. It is a mix of men's thoughts and God's inspiration. That is what all too many teach today to justify not following scripture. PG4him brought up some things I hadn't fully understood and considered, and they are things I need to look into further, but if the Bible indicates a single woman is under her Father's authority till she marries, then that is what God desires, period. This notion that since times have changed, we should change is dangerous! It has led to a major mess where the culture is influencing the church rather than the church influencing the culture.
Your name indicates you want to be a light shining in the darkness, and if we are truly going to be a light, we are to be different. We are supposed to follow scripture, even if they are promoting things that are foreign in today's world. Who cares if most men don't want to take care of their single daughters till they marry? If the Bible says that is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. That should be the attitude. If I had a daughter, and I saw the Bible teaching that, I would gladly follow it. My position is that if the Bible says it is right, it is right. If the Bible says it is wrong, it is wrong. I don't care about how times have changed. The changes are wrong, not the Bible. You need to seriously re-think this.
The head of every man is Christ. He is the head of every Christian. The woman is supposed to obey her husband in everything, according to scripture, but Christ is over all of us. What that means in practical terms is the wife is to obey anything her husband tell her unless he tells her to sin. He can't demand his wife sin because Christ is over all. Women are not without authority because they are single.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 15, 2018 15:17:30 GMT -5
Our daughters are ages 19, 23, and 24 (soon to be 25). They all live on their own... the younger 2 are roommates with another friend their age. They all support themselves, and yet, they are still under our cover. My husband has often given financial assistance when needed (bills, vehicle care, groceries, etc), and they are all on our medical insurance through his work. We still pay the cell phone bill for our youngest daughter. I know times have changed, but we still see it as our responsibility to provide if needed. (And that mostly falls on my husband, their father.) My preference would be that they lived nearby, but they're all 4 to 5 hours away. I look at it like this. Our culture is messed up. It is moving further and further away from scriptural teachings. We should never conform to the cultural changes. Doing that is why the church is in such a mess today. We should follow scripture as written, even those so called things that were cultural norms 2000 years ago. I am not speaking of following every tradition from 2000 years ago, but every Biblical teaching from 2000 years ago. If the Bible says we should do something in a certain way, that does not change. I am not to justify not following something because times have changed.
The Bible has one way of doing things and the culture another. They are at odds with each other. I would greatly encourage everyone to write down how the Bible says to do things and how our modern society does things side by side and notice the differences. Instead of trying to conform to the changes, what would happen if we all refused to do that and held to scripture? We are to be a peculiar people. We are a chosen generation. We are to come out from among the world and be a separate people. How do we justify rejecting scripture based on how times have changed? Will God accept that when we stand before him?
I believe you and your husband are doing the right thing regarding your daughters Abby.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 15, 2018 15:27:17 GMT -5
Brother John, I ask you to read the book of Ruth with a fresh set of eyes. Also take another look at Esther. The Bible gives us no clear example of a woman who executed successful ministry with no male guardian. Jesus even asked John to adopt His mother. Mary and Martha lived with Lazarus. I don’t expect you to just take my word for it. Just study on it and tell me what you think.
|
|