Friendly Bible Study - participants must agree to Nicene Creed.

[Carl Emerson]

OK interesting take, however Jesus was given the Father's name above every name and the Name equates to Authority. This same Name is shared by the Father and the Son as recordrd twice in John 17.

As in the body of Christ there is to be mutual submission reflecting how it is in the Godhead.

Mutual submission dismisses the concept of rank.

 

[Brakelite]

OK interesting take, however Jesus was given the Father's name above every name and the Name equates to Authority. This same Name is shared by the Father and the Son as recordrd twice in John 17.

As in the body of Christ there is to be mutual submission reflecting how it is in the Godhead.

Mutual submission dismisses the concept of rank.

“24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. ”
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 KJV
Unfeigned Bible

There is no mutual submission in the Godhead. No-where do we see the Father submitting to the will of His Son. Which is as it should be in every family. The father/parent is the head.

 

[RedFan]

There is no mutual submission in the Godhead. No-where do we see the Father submitting to the will of His Son. Which is as it should be in every family. The father/parent is the head.

Are you suggesting a hierarchy here? The Father, over the Son, over the Holy Spirit? The Son sitting at the Father's right hand and the Holy Spirit sitting at His left (a la The Ascension of Isaiah)?

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is no mutual submission in the Godhead. No-where do we see the Father submitting to the will of His Son. Which is as it should be in every family. The father/parent is the head.

They are in perfect unity and mutually submitted sharing the same authority.

However we must not debate the Trinity - I suggest being careful to agree with the Nicene Creed.

 

[Hidden In Him]

They are in perfect unity and mutually submitted sharing the same authority.

However we must not debate the Trinity - I suggest being careful to agree with the Nicene Creed.

Greetings, Carl Emerson, and blessings in Christ!

Decided to make my way back over here and reacquaint myself with the community. If you could, please tag me when the next study begins. I'd like to participate if it doesn't mean trying to catch up on 40 pages of stuff, LoL.

Blessings, and hope you are well!

Your friend,
Hidden In Him

P.S. Forgive me btw if I don't understand the format. I was assuming studies are done separately, but maybe you have them running continuously within the same thread.
- H

 

[Carl Emerson]

Greetings, Carl Emerson, and blessings in Christ!

Decided to make my way back over here and reacquaint myself with the community. If you could, please tag me when the next study begins. I'd like to participate if it doesn't mean trying to catch up on 40 pages of stuff, LoL.

Blessings, and hope you are well!

Your friend,
Hidden In Him

P.S. Forgive me btw if I don't understand the format. I was assuming studies are done separately, but maybe you have them running continuously within the same thread.
- H

Hi there, Nice to hear from you again. We are working through Acts and I introduce a chapter every 10-14 days. We have created a friendly space to hear a variety of angles on the text without the head banging that usually goes on. Those who don't hold mainstream views usually can't agree with Nicea. Next will be Acts 9.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hi there, Nice to hear from you again. We are working through Acts and I introduce a chapter every 10-14 days. We have created a friendly space to hear a variety of angles on the text without the head banging that usually goes on. Those who don't hold mainstream views usually can't agree with Nicea. Next will be Acts 9.

That sounds great, Carl! Count me in. I'm not much for the haranguing any more either, so I'd likey fit right in. I'm also Apostle's Creed still, so no problems there.

Tag me when it starts, and if I don't respond then just send me a PM. Sometimes the tag system doesn't work like it should.

Blessings, and glad to see you still keeping up the good work.
- H

 

[Carl Emerson]

That sounds great, Carl! Count me in. I'm not much for the haranguing any more either, so I'd likey fit right in. I'm also Apostle's Creed still, so no problems there.

Tag me when it starts, and if I don't respond then just send me a PM. Sometimes the tag system doesn't work like it should.

Blessings, and glad to see you still keeping up the good work.
- H

Nicene Creed - bit more detailed... See post #697

Will kick things off again in a couple of days...

Welcome aboard !!!

 

[Brakelite]

Are you suggesting a hierarchy here? The Father, over the Son, over the Holy Spirit? The Son sitting at the Father's right hand and the Holy Spirit sitting at His left (a la The Ascension of Isaiah)?

Yes.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes.

Mod's do not allow debate on Trinity - lets desist and return to Acts please.

 

[marks]

“24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. ”
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 KJV
Unfeigned Bible

There is no mutual submission in the Godhead. No-where do we see the Father submitting to the will of His Son. Which is as it should be in every family. The father/parent is the head.

And . . .

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Much love!

@Carl Emerson

 

[Carl Emerson]

And . . .

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Much love!

@Carl Emerson

Leaders fall because they fail to be in mutual submission.

Mark 10:42-45
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. ...

 

[marks]

Leaders fall because they fail to be in mutual submission.

Mark 10:42-45
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. ...

Do you suppose there might be a harmony between these two passages without negating one of them?

Perhaps some are actually to rule others, and that they should rule according to what it best for those whom they rule? And those who are so ruled, they should submit, knowing that's how it's going to work best?

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Every word in this passage applies.

Much love!

 

[Carl Emerson]

Do you suppose there might be a harmony between these two passages without negating one of them?

Perhaps some are actually to rule others, and that they should rule according to what it best for those whom they rule? And those who are so ruled, they should submit, knowing that's how it's going to work best?

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Every word in this passage applies.

Much love!

Branches of the modern church have elevated leadership to the extent that there is little accountability.

"Do not touch the Lord's anointed" was commonly quoted - leadership became untouchable and isolated, then smitten by the enemy of souls.

'Lording it over' is the prevailing culture in these churches.

One of my former Pastors is in prison right now.

Mutual accountability is meant to operate at all levels - such leaders have become dangerously untouchable and many are falling.

If servanthood and mutual submission is at the core of fellowship there is no hierarchy but healthy respect for gifts and calling.

This is the message of the sermon on the mount and Jesus lived it as a suffering servant. We need more feet washing.

We have however seen such biblical foundations replaced by commercially proven leadership styles to promote 'church growth'

Lord have mercy - breathe on the gathered again and restore love and respect.

 

[marks]

Branches of the modern church have elevated leadership to the extent that there is little accountability.

Is that so? I suppose that's been the case all along in some circles. But we need to understand and receive the word even though some abuse their position.

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

There are those who are to rule over us, and they are there for our protection. They will have to give account to Jesus just like we all will. We are to submit to them so we don't cause them grief, that they may fulfill their role joyfully, and not with strife, because it's better for us that way.

I'm just guessing but it sounds like you've come to distrust the Biblical model and roles because you've seen abuses, but I don't think that's the correct approach to Scripture. I think it's better rather to find an assembly that functions Scripturally.

Well, I'm back to my previous conclusion, that I hold too tightly to what is written in the Bible to fit well in this thread.

There's no need to tag me in the future.

Much love!

 

[Carl Emerson]

Is that so? I suppose that's been the case all along in some circles. But we need to understand and receive the word even though some abuse their position.

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

There are those who are to rule over us, and they are there for our protection. They will have to give account to Jesus just like we all will. We are to submit to them so we don't cause them grief, that they may fulfill their role joyfully, and not with strife, because it's better for us that way.

I'm just guessing but it sounds like you've come to distrust the Biblical model and roles because you've seen abuses, but I don't think that's the correct approach to Scripture. I think it's better rather to find an assembly that functions Scripturally.

Well, I'm back to my previous conclusion, that I hold too tightly to what is written in the Bible to fit well in this thread.

There's no need to tag me in the future.

Much love!

Interesting response - submit to abusive unaccountable leadership ?

I trust the Biblical model - currently in fellowship with wise, humble, loving leadership.

Yes - we take the Bible seriously here and as it reads, "Lording it over" is not the way of Jesus.

 

[marks]

Interesting response - submit to abusive unaccountable leadership ?

Is that what I said? No, it is not. So why make it sound as though I did?? Not cool.

Definitely you can stop tagging me.

Much love!

 

[Carl Emerson]

Is that what I said? No, it is not. So why make it sound as though I did?? Not cool.

Definitely you can stop tagging me.

Much love!

I quote you...

"But we need to understand and receive the word even though some abuse their position."

Personally I would move on and seek fellowship that expresses the Fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Brakelite]

There are those who are to rule over us, and they are there for our protection. They will have to give account to Jesus just like we all will. We are to submit to them so we don't cause them grief, that they may fulfill their role joyfully, and not with strife, because it's better for us that way.

I'm just guessing but it sounds like you've come to distrust the Biblical model and roles because you've seen abuses, but I don't think that's the correct approach to Scripture. I think it's better rather to find an assembly that functions Scripturally

Submitting inherently contains the idea of being voluntary. It is left up to us as to who we submit to, and we make that judgement on the basis of Vivian teaching and practise, and as Carl said, the fruit of the Spirit.
This church authority concept has me deeply concerned in relation to the current political climate in American pre-election promises from both sides of the house toward the religious right. I noticed even Kamala is now championing the church. It seems to me that once the church receives the political power it has been promised, church authority will become legislated mandated Church doctrine. Then the question will be justifiably asked in response to your statement...

Perhaps some are actually to rule others, and that they should rule according to what it best for those whom they rule?

..."who decides what is best for others when it becomes politically motivated? History repeats. Look what happened the last time the church had political power. It wasn't pretty.

 

[Brakelite]

Mod's do not allow debate on Trinity - lets desist and return to Acts please.

Fine. But I don't think a discussion on whether Jesus is truly the Son of God needs to be necessarily a trinitarian focussed discussion. Unless one cannot perceive a Father/Son relationship without it. In that case, we definitely do need to discuss the trinity, because basing doctrine on creeds is surely dangerous. Are we allowed to discuss creeds and whether they are necessary and to be criteria for judging one's faith?