@@newkingdommedia9434 I'm curious, would you say the faith of a mother (with an unbelieving father) could save children? My reading of 1st Cor. 7 (which I assume you base this off of) makes me think that yes, her faith would :)
@@yeetoburrito9972 The problem is children of both anglicans baptised in infancy grows, later spits on Christianity and praticies hedonism and dies - this is coomon situation of anglicanisn in for example Europe and Lutherans also - yet both pretend they Don,t see that, but such thing cannot happen in a system where regeneration occur in infant baptism by faith of parents. Masive Anglican, Lutheran apostacy in Europe of thieir almost whole generation that is compelately sadly Lost, falsify and disprove their position of baptism in favor of those protestants holding to beliver's baptism. Thats why I would never be Anglican/lutheran myselve.
To beleive Baptism does not save "automatically" does not negate God's promise to beleivers and their children. Circumsission was administered toninfants - why would baptism be any diffrent?
I suppose this is why the church, comprising both males and females, is called the bride of Christ. He is our federal Head. I've never heard this explained before, excellent explanation, thank you!
Both men and women of the 11 other tribes were excluded from temple participation but the Nazarite vow provided a way for both men and women to enter into a special service to God.
God's covenant people in the OT were described as God's vineyard, God's flock ECT. Eze 34:17 - “As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and male goats. Behold, I, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep. Because God's covenant people were referred to in many different ways, one can't just cherry pick ONLY the analogies that one finds a positive solidarity with. A male cannot read in Genesis: "He will rule over you" and honestly think "this really bodes well for me". He will rule over you IS first and foremost God's Holy Rule of Israel as His wife. Because some of the Levitical sacrifices could be male or female but they ALL had to be from the herd. They had to belong and be the own possession of the giver. The sacrifice had to COST them something. They couldn't be wild. So God made for Himself a people for His own possession because the seed had to be from His own "wife". Jesus, fully God, had to be born in the flesh from His own possession. There are so many scripturally unsound, self-deceived, self-inflated statements in this video....🙄
I totally agree but what would you say to those who may protest that God made man "head" only because in both the old and new testament it was a patriarchal society and so God was just bending to their ways just as how jesus himself said moses only allowed divorces because of their wayward hearts.
Is this the biggest question facing you in this life? What to do about a potential protest against your male apologetics? One must be careful about approaching the Bible like Haman, with delicious excitement over words of reward and visions of grandeur, becoming convinced those words are written about them. This reminds me of certain individuals that read a verse such as "Do not give to dogs what is holy. Do not throw pearls to swine." And off they go! A group of the most delightful pig and dog detectives, they've never had such fun with their theories and conjectures. They never stop to ask "What is holy?" The Bible is eager to answer THIS question. It doesn't take long to realize mankind is not holy, they are in fact, desperately wicked and in need of a new heart. Who can give it to them? And they realize that as they go on asking, seeking & knocking that if God doesn't hear, open and answer then they will know nothing. God's word is designed to come to us like a Nathan to a David, where one can have an encounter with the living God that they will never recover from. Hierarchy means Holy Rule. So if one goes to Leviticus 15, they go with the lens that Jesus fulfilled the whole law of Leviticus 15. How? How did He do it? Then one might go to Ezekiel 36:16 to the chapter's end. Because you see now, that although the men might have followed their male Levitical laws, dotting every i, crossing every t, this is where they realize "they" are not the husband in this covenant between Divine and Human. They are the wife, they are the woman. God is their husband. They have kept the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. They have "shed blood" and are unclean. And this is what happens with every single law, God's covenant people, Israel, the Woman in the covenant relationship, she will incrementally break and fall short of every single solitary precept. And Gentile men need to come to terms with the fact that they are not first. "First to the Jew. Then to the Gentile." They will have to come to terms with the fact that had they lived during Paul's day, they would realize very quickly that being a male doesn't entitle them to a front seat. They would in fact be the cause of rioting and violence against Paul and he would accept the bullseye on his back on their behalf. As the Bride of Christ one is supposed to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is them, not ready to boast about why they think God left them "in charge". One is not to rejoice that demons or anyone else for that matter is "subject" to them but to rejoice that their name is written in the Lambs book of Life.
Even in Leviticus 15 we see that a man has a process for his own uncleanness and a women offer their own sacrifices for their uncleanness And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest, to the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Interesting and no doubt Biblically correct but I wonder if the Virgin Mary's prominent and revered status, in the RCC somehow balances out all this testosterone?!
This is also why egalitarianism is itself the redefinition of marriage as gender neutral. If males do not represent Christ as bridegroom then a female could be a bridegroom, obviously. WO is the redefinition of marriage, sadly, which is why every jurisdiction that has adopted WO have, following a couple generations of clergy, adopted SSM.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you may not understand the definition of the word "represent". This word means be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity. You are not, in any capacity, a physical or spiritual representative of the Bridegroom. You are only a member of Christ's church. Multiple metaphors are used to describe His church: House, Field, Building, Branches, Body, Bride ECT. But Christ, as the Son, is in charge of God’s entire house. And we are God’s house, if we keep our courage and remain confident in our hope in Christ. Hebrews 3:6 and I could keep going but if you insist that you are a representative of the Bridegroom in the Bride/Bridegroom metaphor then you will also have to insist that you are the Vine in Vine/Branches metaphor, that you are the Cornerstone in the Building metaphor. You are just a fellow worker. You are just a waterer or a planter. "So neither the one planting nor the one watering is anything, but only God, the One giving growth." 1 Corinthians 3:7 So in the Field metaphor, you are nothing. You are a nobody. None of these are direct analogies so don't ride the metaphors beyond the distance God intended them to go.
@@carolynarnim2149 perhaps. But male and female is a symbol, not a metaphor, so that is the difference between marriage and ordination and your other examples. Setting aside the difference between metaphor and symbol, if we assume the Bridegroom is a metaphor and all biblical metaphors function in the same way as you suggest, then WO is valid. In other words, I agree that if you are right, then WO is right, but it also follows that SSM is thereby right as well. One cannot coherently hold to both WO and traditional marriage because traditional marriage is based on the same anatomical symbol as male-only ordination.
@@joelreinhardt2084 As far as WO (women's ordination, I assume) It matters very little to me whether you ever listen to a female pastor. If one has read the Bible from start to finish then one has, at some point, been taught, rebuked, corrected and/or trained in righteousness by the words or actions of a woman as recorded in the closed canon of scripture. God anointed women throughout history to act and speak on His behalf and those words and actions were recorded and became part of "All scripture is God breathed and useful for..." So again, it matters not one bit. If a male has read the whole Bible it would seem to me that his delicate and precarious authority has managed to survive being corrected in righteousness by a female. Whether he is able to put that righteousness into practice is another matter entirely.
@@carolynarnim2149 Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. And the most favoured ("graced") and authoritative of women of all time is the Blessed Virgin Mary speaking of her Son, Christ: "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it"!
A husband is not responsible for his wife's sin. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16 But each one shall die for his own sin. 2 Kings 14:6 but each one shall die for his own sin.” 2 Chronicles 25:4 But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Jeremiah 31:30
Don't blame Adam for your sin. YOUR SIN was from the foundation of the world. Genesis 1 is ELOHIM (Lucifer and the fallen angels). They made this realm. They made man in their image. (tares) Man is an idol, a trap to hunt angels. Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in their system. (wheat) One Gospel: Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods). REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Great explanation. Headship also has amazing implications for our doctrine of baptism and defense of the baptism of infants
Absolutely! The faith of fathers is able to save their children.
@@newkingdommedia9434 I'm curious, would you say the faith of a mother (with an unbelieving father) could save children? My reading of 1st Cor. 7 (which I assume you base this off of) makes me think that yes, her faith would :)
@@yeetoburrito9972Yes it would because the headship over the children would be transferred over to her
@@yeetoburrito9972 The problem is children of both anglicans baptised in infancy grows, later spits on Christianity and praticies hedonism and dies - this is coomon situation of anglicanisn in for example Europe and Lutherans also - yet both pretend they Don,t see that, but such thing cannot happen in a system where regeneration occur in infant baptism by faith of parents. Masive Anglican, Lutheran apostacy in Europe of thieir almost whole generation that is compelately sadly Lost, falsify and disprove their position of baptism in favor of those protestants holding to beliver's baptism. Thats why I would never be Anglican/lutheran myselve.
To beleive Baptism does not save "automatically" does not negate God's promise to beleivers and their children. Circumsission was administered toninfants - why would baptism be any diffrent?
I suppose this is why the church, comprising both males and females, is called the bride of Christ. He is our federal Head. I've never heard this explained before, excellent explanation, thank you!
Both men and women of the 11 other tribes were excluded from temple participation but the Nazarite vow provided a way for both men and women to enter into a special service to God.
Love it mate. I made the same case to someone recently. It’s good to hear it said by someone who is more theologically trained.
😊
God's covenant people in the OT were described as God's vineyard, God's flock ECT.
Eze 34:17 - “As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and male goats.
Behold, I, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep.
I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep.
Because God's covenant people were referred to in many different ways, one can't just cherry pick ONLY the analogies that one finds a positive solidarity with. A male cannot read in Genesis: "He will rule over you" and honestly think "this really bodes well for me". He will rule over you IS first and foremost God's Holy Rule of Israel as His wife. Because some of the Levitical sacrifices could be male or female but they ALL had to be from the herd. They had to belong and be the own possession of the giver. The sacrifice had to COST them something. They couldn't be wild. So God made for Himself a people for His own possession because the seed had to be from His own "wife". Jesus, fully God, had to be born in the flesh from His own possession.
There are so many scripturally unsound, self-deceived, self-inflated statements in this video....🙄
I totally agree but what would you say to those who may protest that God made man "head" only because in both the old and new testament it was a patriarchal society and so God was just bending to their ways just as how jesus himself said moses only allowed divorces because of their wayward hearts.
I'd say that we can see this patriarchal system right from the garden and so it is clearly God who instituted it.
Is this the biggest question facing you in this life? What to do about a potential protest against your male apologetics? One must be careful about approaching the Bible like Haman, with delicious excitement over words of reward and visions of grandeur, becoming convinced those words are written about them. This reminds me of certain individuals that read a verse such as "Do not give to dogs what is holy. Do not throw pearls to swine." And off they go! A group of the most delightful pig and dog detectives, they've never had such fun with their theories and conjectures. They never stop to ask "What is holy?" The Bible is eager to answer THIS question. It doesn't take long to realize mankind is not holy, they are in fact, desperately wicked and in need of a new heart. Who can give it to them? And they realize that as they go on asking, seeking & knocking that if God doesn't hear, open and answer then they will know nothing. God's word is designed to come to us like a Nathan to a David, where one can have an encounter with the living God that they will never recover from. Hierarchy means Holy Rule. So if one goes to Leviticus 15, they go with the lens that Jesus fulfilled the whole law of Leviticus 15. How? How did He do it? Then one might go to Ezekiel 36:16 to the chapter's end. Because you see now, that although the men might have followed their male Levitical laws, dotting every i, crossing every t, this is where they realize "they" are not the husband in this covenant between Divine and Human. They are the wife, they are the woman. God is their husband. They have kept the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. They have "shed blood" and are unclean. And this is what happens with every single law, God's covenant people, Israel, the Woman in the covenant relationship, she will incrementally break and fall short of every single solitary precept. And Gentile men need to come to terms with the fact that they are not first. "First to the Jew. Then to the Gentile." They will have to come to terms with the fact that had they lived during Paul's day, they would realize very quickly that being a male doesn't entitle them to a front seat. They would in fact be the cause of rioting and violence against Paul and he would accept the bullseye on his back on their behalf. As the Bride of Christ one is supposed to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is them, not ready to boast about why they think God left them "in charge". One is not to rejoice that demons or anyone else for that matter is "subject" to them but to rejoice that their name is written in the Lambs book of Life.
Even in Leviticus 15 we see that a man has a process for his own uncleanness and a women offer their own sacrifices for their uncleanness
And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest, to the entrance of the tent of meeting.
He has always been a man. Since before Adam. He came from above. He wasn't created. He only lowered himself to become flesh for our sakes.
Interesting and no doubt Biblically correct but I wonder if the Virgin Mary's prominent and revered status, in the RCC somehow balances out all this testosterone?!
This is also why egalitarianism is itself the redefinition of marriage as gender neutral. If males do not represent Christ as bridegroom then a female could be a bridegroom, obviously. WO is the redefinition of marriage, sadly, which is why every jurisdiction that has adopted WO have, following a couple generations of clergy, adopted SSM.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you may not understand the definition of the word "represent". This word means
be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity. You are not, in any capacity, a physical or spiritual representative of the Bridegroom. You are only a member of Christ's church. Multiple metaphors are used to describe His church: House, Field, Building, Branches, Body, Bride ECT.
But Christ, as the Son, is in charge of God’s entire house. And we are God’s house, if we keep our courage and remain confident in our hope in Christ. Hebrews 3:6 and I could keep going but if you insist that you are a representative of the Bridegroom in the Bride/Bridegroom metaphor then you will also have to insist that you are the Vine in Vine/Branches metaphor, that you are the Cornerstone in the Building metaphor. You are just a fellow worker. You are just a waterer or a planter. "So neither the one planting nor the one watering is anything, but only God, the One giving growth." 1 Corinthians 3:7
So in the Field metaphor, you are nothing. You are a nobody. None of these are direct analogies so don't ride the metaphors beyond the distance God intended them to go.
@@carolynarnim2149 perhaps. But male and female is a symbol, not a metaphor, so that is the difference between marriage and ordination and your other examples. Setting aside the difference between metaphor and symbol, if we assume the Bridegroom is a metaphor and all biblical metaphors function in the same way as you suggest, then WO is valid. In other words, I agree that if you are right, then WO is right, but it also follows that SSM is thereby right as well. One cannot coherently hold to both WO and traditional marriage because traditional marriage is based on the same anatomical symbol as male-only ordination.
@@joelreinhardt2084 As far as WO (women's ordination, I assume) It matters very little to me whether you ever listen to a female pastor. If one has read the Bible from start to finish then one has, at some point, been taught, rebuked, corrected and/or trained in righteousness by the words or actions of a woman as recorded in the closed canon of scripture. God anointed women throughout history to act and speak on His behalf and those words and actions were recorded and became part of "All scripture is God breathed and useful for..." So again, it matters not one bit. If a male has read the whole Bible it would seem to me that his delicate and precarious authority has managed to survive being corrected in righteousness by a female. Whether he is able to put that righteousness into practice is another matter entirely.
@@carolynarnim2149 Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. And the most favoured ("graced") and authoritative of women of all time is the Blessed Virgin Mary speaking of her Son, Christ: "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it"!
A husband is not responsible for his wife's sin.
Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
But each one shall die for his own sin. 2 Kings 14:6
but each one shall die for his own sin.” 2 Chronicles 25:4
But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Jeremiah 31:30
Don't blame Adam for your sin. YOUR SIN was from the foundation of the world.
Genesis 1 is ELOHIM (Lucifer and the fallen angels).
They made this realm.
They made man in their image. (tares)
Man is an idol, a trap to hunt angels.
Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in their system. (wheat)
One Gospel:
Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.