On the point of women leaving their husband due to not being emotional fulfilled this is a key indicator that the woman had other sexual encounters before marriage and preferred someone from her past but married her current husband because she wanted security. This is why women being promiscuous is dangerous because it effects their ability to pair bond and not compare. I do think it’s important for men to know a woman’s past and her red flags and not think her past doesn’t matter. Of course she can be redeemed, but women need to face the consequences of their poor decisions and realize that her past poor decisions will effect the stability of their future.
That is a very unloving and very harsh judgement. Sinners who are redeemed by Jesus like woman at the well are much beloved by him. I am one of those and am rejoicing in my Father's love.
Or... women who have experience of being treated well in previous relationships are informed enough to know when they're being mistreated in their marriage? The opposite situation being; women who have never had a previous relationship, without the possibility of comparison, accept the abuse, control, etc. because they don't know better.
@@carolpagotto5395 Sometimes harsh words are necessary, though her comment wasn't that harsh. It's not loving to continue to lie to women that they can be sexually promiscuous and have 5-10+ relationships in their life prior to "settling down with a husband" and there won't be any consequences on a deep level that makes it exponentially difficult to pair bond with that husband properly. Women are not designed by God for that, they are designed to leave their father and go to a husband, 1 sexual partner for life, unless he should die early. The more relationships a woman has, even if they don't have sex, increases the odds that she will encounter an man who checks all the boxes, strong, attractive, successful, good leader, etc, but he just won't commit to her. Then she ultimately settles with someone that is less "ideal" (but a good man) in those ways but will commit to her, and will constantly compare her husband to the one who wouldn't (internally and sometimes externally), it's way worse if she is sexually active in those relationships. The numbers don't lie, after 1 sexual partner for a woman, the divorce rates skyrocket and continue to with each successive partner.
@@jilltoby8Typical female response. Always blaming men for their own mistakes. I am a man, and I don't blame other people for my sins. I recognize that any problems or failings that I have had in my life, all resulted from not seeking God's will for my life, or from not obeying my parents or taking their wise advice
1:14:02 “Where there is sin it’s always the man’s fault” I have heard this myself from reformed pastors. I challenged them by explaining to them that there is an important difference between responsibility and guilt, just to get a “deer in the headlights” response from them. I am a father. If my child breaks a possession of yours, my child is guilty of breaking your possession, and I as their father, am responsible for making you whole.
This is a badly needed discussion. Great job speaking to the historical events of the last 100 years that have fertilized the rebellious ground we now walk on in much of the professing christian church in the West.
I’m 41 I attend a biblically sound church, I’m widowed 8 years. Before you call black pilled men “losers” know that I don’t see any single women in my age range attending this church for years now. It’s easy when you have a ring in your finger to call us single men losers but it’s not exactly that easy out here to find a biblical women. I’m glad your talking about all these things. I was physically hit once in my marriage by my wife in front of my kids and I also endured long periods of no affection. The church has drastically failed men and women when it comes to teaching the scriptures that are going to step on people’s toes.
Go to a different church’s Singles Night. They have them (pre Covid) all around. Find a good young woman and train her in your ways and needs. They are out there and when you find her, accept she is one in a million because it’s tough out there. Good Luck. I’m very sorry for yours and your children’s loss. It’s huge. Hope your ok.
It's not any better at other churches. Most attractive women have already been taken. The women who are still single in their 30s or 40s usually are not attractive, or have personality issues or baggage.
@@nerychristian- I’ve never been married, and it’s not because I’m unattractive, have personality flaws or lots of baggage. I don’t particularly appreciate that I’ve never been married, but I can’t change that when the choices for a husband have been slim to none. Most men I’ve met over the years are worldly, and I will not be unequally yoked.
I do find that married Christians in leadership roles can be critical of single people in their 40s. I had to stop following some people on Twitter because of this. They assume I'm single because, as a woman, I must be a feminist focused on a career. They are incorrect. They fail to recognize that there are many worldly men out there, making it challenging to meet someone. I find it to be quite hurtful.
Thank you for being honest about where intersectional dynamics are in the west and in our country. There is a lot of people in the Manosphere saying Christians are basically pushovers and I’m glad that you and those around you are proving them wrong. Also Denver CO has an oasis, Trinity Church Denver (definitely in line with Doug Wilson )
A lot of truth there. At best these cowardly 'pastors' fear the world before God and are serving themselves and their own status in the church machines they benefit from.
I personally know a pastor who married (after being widowed) a gluttonous, loud and contentious single mom who raised unGodly children, and who clearly ran her first husband out of the home. The more i watch her behavior, the more i realize he is living in sin with this woman and cannot be the pastor of this church. What sealed my judgement of this was when I approached them distraught for help with my whoring wife, and this overweight heathen proceeded to use this as yet another opportunity to hate on men... specifically me in this instance. Several times over the year that followed i watched her constantly bully her way through the small church, and blatantly teach despite not being permitted scripturally... but since these weren't sermons, nobody seamed to care. I am responsible to God for the upbringing of my 4 children, and that becomes increasingly more difficult now that I am a divorced single father, but I fight tooth and nail for my children and continue to teach and raise them in Biblical manhood and am clear on the truth for them... the 50 percent of the time they spend with me anyway.
Much appreciate your stance. I would just like to add, three things which go along with what was said. One, a communist, Lenore Weitzman, was one of the people behind the California No Fault Divorce Law, and her purpose behind the law was getting rid of Christian marriage. She said so in various writings, one being California Law Review, Volume 62/issue 4, Sept 1974, pgs 1169-1288 and in quotes in sociology textbooks on families. And Two, August Bebel wrote a book "Women and Socialism," 1879, which is available to read online, and is about feminism. Marx, Engels and Bebel were the fathers of the feminist movement. And three, in the words of Dennis Prager, who seemed to be addressing Christians at the time, "You fight or they win."
@@JonathanSaxon I know he was the one who signed the bill into law. There's a bigger picture here. The law is all over America, not just CA, and look at what else the Left is doing today in the country today regarding women and marriage. Reagan did not start it all by signing a bill. Put the blame where it belongs. The bill was part of an ongoing attack on Christianity by the Left, which hasn't stopped and gets worse day by day.
@@rebeccalindley153 Sure Christianity has been attacked by the left wing. But remember that Abigail Adams wrote John Adams and told him the men must give women equality or they will rebel all the way back in 1776. The USA has been vulnerable to female rebellion from the very start. When you build authority on consent, and not on Gods will, you bind men to requiring the consent of their wives to rule. Which means women are free to rebel as they please.
All of the current problems are because men refused for the sake of not stirring up the feminist monster, to discipline women. And instead just doubled down on blaming men for everything, even their own wives sin.
It doesn't help that men have few legal rights in marriage. Women know they can threaten their husbands with divorce. And the man is likely to lose home and children.
Joel and Eric - great discussion! Great last question and fantastic response. I think this era of tyranny against men - is actually strengthening many men in their faith to think “What do I need to do so my children grow up Faithful in the Lord?” as their top priority. Also, this is driving many men towards PostMillennialism - when they were once living the comfort centric lifestyle (e.g. deceptively skating by in the “age of leasure”)
I know I've said it before, but I'll keep beating the dead horse....Nancy Pearcey is a rock star in educating the reader about how evangelicalism came to be. She goes through so much valuable history in the book Total Truth. Lots of the episodes remind me of that book!
I’ve been watching Joel for the last 8 months. I love your outlook and agree most of the time with theology and strategy for the country. I agree that regrouping is necessary in some cases depending on what state you live in in order to rebuild later and harden our position. But I have to ask, what made you the way you are? Was it the protection of your parents or did your experiences forge you in the fire of struggles? Our environment shapes us for good or evil but the scars we received growing up have strengthened us. Yes, we need to guide our families and find faithful churches that are few and far between but telling people to pick up and move can’t be the only answer. We need to recapture our local churches. Start in small groups and convince the faithful members of your correct position. Build from within the church first, then community, then recapture schools. The current ideology took over 100 years to take root. It will take at least that long to reverse it. We need tendrils everywhere and only regrouping in Moscow, Mesa, and where you are in Texas is not feasible for the large number of faithful, reformed Christians to only have three options of where to flee to. I suppose another answer could be church planting as I know Apologia and you are working towards and doing but that is still slower than reform from within the church.
Lead Pastor here. Excellent video gentlemen. I was once warned by a wise pasror that the biggest problems I would have in my church would come from women. He was 100% correct. The Spirit of Jezebel is alive and well in our churches. The solution to this is pastors insisting older women fulfill the requirements of Titus 2:3-5. Women don't need another Women's Bible Study. What they need is discipleship to become Godly women and stop being conformed to this world.
I agree! I am a women and as I age, I can definitely see this issue is quite prevalent. What I also am noticing, and have been guilty of myself, is women falling headlong into false doctrine via NAR, Word of faith, Women's Conferences, emotionalism etc...and their influence upon other women is multiplying....and the husband's appear powerless over their wives.
@@porchlights2268 Oh how we need your voice in our churches today. I pray that God will make you bold in fulfilling Titus 2. And if you already are, then I pray He will make your ministry fruitful! God bless you sister
Here’s a dirty little secret. My dealings with women have for the most part been Christian women and they always led with sexuality. I was not as well versed in scripture but now at 41 I am and it’s clear women are out of control nor are they corrected biblically.
I did a paper in college proving with trends (anyone can do this themselves) the correlation between spiritual realm and natural realm . It was a hunch. I was trying to prove that the spirit realm was not only real but effected the natural realm. There is an identical correlation between when Bibles were taken out of schools and the increase of fatherless homes. Theres two different years mind you. One when they were ruled illegal and one when they were completely eradicated along with prayer. The two events clearly matched up precisely. My mind was blown. I showed it to my husbands cousin (who always challenged me on my theology and who studies trends) and he said, “I dont know what you have exactly, but you have something there”.
The Son submitted 100% to the Father, we are told this is the order. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of the woman. Yet I've experienced countless times Christian women (and men) claiming that wifely submission does NOT mean "obedience" to the will of the husband. So according to them we are supposed to read it as, Christ the Son, God incarnate, was 100% submissive and obedient to the Father's will, man is supposed to look at that and understand his target is to be 100% submissive and obedient to Christ, and when he fails, to repent, but somehow in that chain, when we get to the wife, it no longer means obedience to the will of the husband (which should be the will of Christ/the Father as he obeys his head) or repentance when she fails.... but her submission is something altogether different, it's mutual, or it's conditional, or it's based on her judgement of the will and whether or not it's in alignment with God's will. Even the most complimentarian pastors teach wifely submission in a way that pretty much supports this and makes the whole thing meaningless.
1:14:02 I'm going to push back HARD on that worthless statement. Which elders? They're the ones that got Christianity into this mess by and large. Me and my house will serve the Lord, and that starts by confronting the blatant sin of those who dare call themselves elders, and be the spiritual leader in my own household.
It's really off the topic of this video, though you do touch on it with Eric at the beginning, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more explanation of what seems to be the prevailing Baptist view of elders as synonymous with pastors. The SBC make this explicit in the BF&M, of course. I don't see it quite as clearly in the 1689, but it still seems to assume without stating, in chapter 26, that elder, pastor, and bishop are the same office. But 1 Tim 5:17 makes specific reference, among elders, to those whose work is in preaching and teaching, thereby stating that there are elders whose work is *not* in preaching and teaching. This might be better addressed in another video rather than in the comments here, but I'd be interested to hear this explained.
I imagine elders were men who had been believers for a few years, and who demonstrated spiritual maturity. Probably like mentors in the church, who took on other administrative duties, or who visited orphans or widows.
We have the Law for accountability according to Paul, in Romans. 2Corinthians, Galatians The law tells us what Sin is, and Sin has destroyed the West. We need to treasure Marriage and Family. The Patriarchal Husband lead Family. It may be antiquated but it worked at 95%. That abusive 5% we now know exactly what not to do. We must counsel couples to truly know not just themselves and their roles, but each other.
Joel, first thank you for your courage to speak against the sins of women, women need holiness as much as men and the Lord requires the sanctification throughout His whole church. I hope you have the courage to hear as well. The lament “Where are the fathers?” when it comes to regulating the behavior of the women under his charge, although common from preachers, is yet another undermining of fathers. It undermines the fathers because the church has been unwilling to tell daughters to submit to the law of their fathers and wives to arrange their lives under their husband. The admonition that fathers are responsible for their household, while true, is generally less than helpful when the church is acting in general agreement with an autonomous and atomistic prevailing culture of independent individuals as opposed to a covenantal hierarchy. A father who tries to counsel his teen daughter on proper attire is likely to be vilified as an overbearing tyrant. His own wife will likely oppose him, his daughter resent him and his church is more likely to hold him in derision than vocally support him. The church wants to hold men accountable for leading the home on the one hand, while concomitantly cheering on female rebellion on the other. How many sermons are preached against sexual refusal or defrauding the marriage bed? I guess the ratio as compared to say pornography is less than 1:100. How many sermons against “female pornography” ie romance novels and the hallmark channel of fornication fantasy. Again the ratio compared to the erotica men prefer is around 1:1000. Most preachers won’t even admit that “romance literature” is pornography- literally from (pornaio) fornication and (graphos) writing. Perhaps we need a separate term like fornography to describe writing and media that arouses sexual discontent and desire for illicit relationships. My point is that men need to be both equipped and empowered by the church to loving lead, but even more needful in this culture is for the church to teach wives and daughters to honor the household head; to obey with godly submission and to bring their sexuality in conformity with the Word of God, neither the hint of promiscuity nor the autonomy of frigidity. I have been of the opinion that the Christian way to address the sexual revolution was to repent of anti-sexual attitudes and to teach a holy and hot marriage bed. Sex belongs in marriage, that is to say it is not to be experienced outside of marriage but also the Christian marriage should be sexually prolific and fulfilling. The joy of married sex (covenantal copulation) should be elevated as the greatest sexual expression a person could experience rather than only whispered about in embarrassment. The older ladies are instructed to teach the younger how to love their husbands, that includes sexually. The ethical dualism of Augustine and the monastics still haunts the church. The acceptable context for sex has moved from covenant to “love” to now consent. This digression allows predatory male behavior to flourish and uses that as a cudgel against all male sexual desire. This is a big subject but suffice it say, the church is guilty of condemning the whole of male sexuality while affirming female sexuality as empowering regardless of its sinfulness. Simply berating men for rebellion among women is insufficient. The church must work to teach women to abide and honor the patriarchal head while empowering and equipping that head to lead. My recommendation as a first step in this direction is to teach men how to lead family worship and then require them to lead family worship several times weekly. BUT wait there’s more… also instruct children and especially wives to sit under the father’s instruction and receive it with honor. My belief is that with this first step, men will become better leaders, they will find is easier to willingly submit to elders, because they are no longer being undermined by the church, but supported in a concrete way. The practice is instrumental to raise children of the faith with faith, and teach wives how to biblically “pitch their tent” under their husband’s. This is only a first step, but surely more effective and pleasing to Christ than the current practices of patricide. It is difficult to teach respect of fathers while the father is disrespected from the pulpit. Build men up, teach and require respect from wives, that respect becomes a model of honor and obedience for the children to emulate. This is the post-mill method, repentance from the pulpit for disrespecting husbands and fathers while failing to admonish wives and daughters, but beyond that building strong households for the glory of Christ and the advancement of His Kingdom.
@ Dave Buehner I hate to say but my own sex has proved to be Satan's best friend under religious guise . I definitely hate it but it's true. Post modern women have turned aside after Satan
Pastor Webbon, thank you for these videos on how feminism has been the cancer in our society and churches. But I believe feminism cannot be kicked to the same hellhole it spawned from unless men take responsibility and lead by moral example. In the Bible, that is translated as "submit to Christ". But my request would be (coming from a recently married man and always in improvement, and as a thirty-five years old, just like you), how do you lead your wife by example, with practical examples. Would you please elaborate on a video? Because most pastors over here are beta, and I want a Christ-like pastor who practices the masculine leadership he preaches. I await for it! Jah bless!
@ Aramis Y. Cajigas To get rid of that sickness called feminism , rule over women again and subject them to their godly duties. Genesis 3:16 / Titus 2:4 Titus 2:4 contains all the tenets of Patriarchy . If they're taught over and over to the young generation , they can undermine that sickness very quickly. Men don't have to lead by example but to RULE and enforce God's standards and giving women no choice.
Thinking like yours is what keeps feminism going. We have to stop making excuses for women. You are still blaming men for what women are doing. It's actually the other way around. A man cannot lead in his home unless the woman submits to him. It doesn't matter how spiritual the man is. My dad is a really spiritual and biblically sound man, but my mom still refused to submit to him.
@@nerychristian That's so true, and sad at the same time. Maybe your father (just like many fathers) chose a bad woman, just like many men have bad mommas. And by men being better, maybe they will be better equipped in the future to choose better women.
As an Evangelical pastor for 44 years, I think I can say with some degree of accuracy that evangelical churches have become very gynocentric. I can attest to the fact that pastors have become far more willing to avoid the hard truths of Scripture--particularly in regard to Feminism and its impact on Christian women. One example is how pastors have eliminated from their wedding vows for women, "love, honor, and obey."
Another problem in churches is that pastors are afraid to teach about marriage and divorce. And how, if you divorce, you are not allowed to remarry. And if someone marries a divorced woman, he is committing adultery.
Just curious, why do you talk differently in your opening then you do in the rest of the video? Seems a bit fake even though I know you are genuine in what you believe and speak. Just some feedback
As a woman, I am glad that Jesus and NOT even the best of the male Christian population is Head of the church. You did a great job of missing the mark on this one. There is a reason "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. God doesn't give gifts based on sex and we shouldn't be blind to that fact, which plays out in Scripture.
A redeemed woman is a new creation, Jesus has washed her whiter than snow and has a completely new start and is not to be judged by previous behaviour and this is from personal experience. I wasn't referring to anything else than that. You added to my comment something I didn't say. I've been divorced, not my choice, for 30 years and have trouble finding a man who measures up to the biblical ideal for a husband.
@@scottyyoch3537 The standard for a man has become what women feel and want. Women's feelings now matter more than God's will or man's rule. We are really in trouble.
Where are those statistics? Can you post them? Is this within the church? Each marriage is unique and the Lord needs to be the center of each marriage. Please post these statistics before you just ‘talk’ about them. It’s obvious this is rehearsed to throw out an agenda.
@ Frank Contraras Yeah but they don't seem to be so stuck on those futuristic fantasies when it comes to call out MEN and calling husbands , fathers , men in general, jerks or knuckleheads as Mike Winger , the FEMINIST in Christian guise does so openly. It is so bad.
Mine decided to quit abusing and give adultery a try to keep things fresh and spicy. Divorced since 2021, she’s been with her current fiancé since 2016. I now pay child support and get visitation. Praise the Lord 🙏 It’s like the abusive one got the blessing.
I should save my breath, but there’s so little dissent in these comments. You put all your emphasis on a wife’s duty to submit and nothing on a man’s obligation to be worthy. My parents were traditional, my mom saw herself as the subordinate helpmeet to my father, but she never let him shirk his reciprocal obligation to her and us kids. This created a long and happy marriage of deep mutual respect and love. I think your approach and interpretation are not only relics of a medieval mind, but destined to create strife and unhappiness in a wife and thus in your life. Only you won’t know why since you’ve pridefully placed yourself between her and God, subjugating her free will to choose salvation. Jesus is the way to salvation, not flawed husband through flawed church elders and thence to Christ. This is foolish arrogance.
I have never heard a Bible believing pastor ignore the fact that men have obligations in marriage too. I have heard pastors try to redefine or ignore a woman's obligation to obey her husband. The man needs to do his job as well, of course, but a woman's submission to her husband is not dependent on her husband doing a good job. It is simply dependent on being married. It does not have to be earned once you are married any more than a man's love and protection need to be earned. Man and wife both do these things because it is their job.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Blind obedience to a fallible human makes a woman so vulnerable to abuse. A culture requiring blind obedience of women to anything a man requires of her, anything, no matter how reasonable or vile, is a culture that cannot survive without physical force. See fundamentalist Islam, which enforces obedience with honor killings. Ultimately, women will rebel against abuse, pushing her from the religion that taught her to place herself in potentially abusive situations. Tragedy all round. You may claim that men wouldn’t do that or at least a good man wouldn’t. But only a wife knows what her husband is like at home, and men don’t take an interest in another man’s privacy until it’s too late. The reality is simply this. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Your view is unrealistic and idealistic. It is also unbiblical.
Also, could you show me the verse where it says Jesus “beat people” with his whip of cords. Thank you (just can’t find any verse where Jesus physically hurts anyone)
If he fashioned the whip, and used it to drive people from the Temple (John 2:15), what do you think he did with it? Did he just threaten them with it? And if he just swung it around, making them think he was going to hit them, but not actually hitting them, is that really any less "violent" on his part? I don't believe it's explicitly stated that Jesus struck the moneychangers with the whip, but I think it's a very reasonable inference from the text.
@@psalm1197 We are bound, not only by what the Bible says, but also by what it implies--Jesus directly holds the Saducees accountable for such an implication in Mark 12:27 (see also Matthew 22:32 and Luke 20:38). We're told directly that he made a whip, so he obviously used it--it would be pointless otherwise to mention that he made it. So how did he use it? By far the most reasonable and likely interpretation is that he used it to strike the people he was violently ejecting from the temple. If you have a different interpretation, let's hear it; we can then see which one fits the text better. Though I'd question why you feel the need to draw the distinction of whether he actually struck the moneychangers with the whip he used as he was forcibly cleansing the temple. Because we're bound by such "good and necessary consequences" of the text of scripture, I don't believe the question of whether the text directly states that Jesus struck people with the whip is all that important. But I don't believe it does directly state that.
@@danbrown586 I was asking the question because I’ve never read anywhere in Scripture that Jesus “beat people” . The verse John 2:15 seems to point to him using the whip to drive out “both sheep and cattle” and that he overturned the tables of the money changers…but I see no mention of him using a whip on people. Not trying to have a debate, by the way.
@@danbrown586 yikes....Jesus used his whip to strike people???....that's a completely fallacious idea. I think that the better interpretation is that it was a means of showing authoruty and gaining attention with the snap. We don't have any record of anyone being bruise or cut open and injured that should make us believe he struck anyone with it.
27:59 - You almost have it 100% right here, and I was genuinely surprised as you spoke on this man and his wives and what they should do, but respectfully you dropped the ball at the very end. When you say "he can't be an elder" you may be right, but those elder requirements are debated, but I submit to you to consider that if he cannot be an elder it's NOT because his having of multiple wives is a matter of reproach, as that is not supported by the text, but it would be an exemption from taking on elder responsibility, which is not a matter of reproach. Then you said "and you don't say that this is right or that he should do it again" ... that's mainly where you dropped the ball. You cannot as a Christian justify that statement in admonishing the man for having more than 1 wife, because we have no scripture to back that opinion up. It was never a matter of reproach for men in the scripture to cover more than 1 woman, not in the NT or the OT. For you to tell that man and his wives they can stay together but also tell them that inherently what they chose was sinful or wrong and he should cover no more women after that, will cause conflict, and it will cause that family to misinterpret scripture as they dive into it. Because that rebuke that the Christian missionary gave them, doesn't exist in the scripture. Then you went on into fallacies about Abraham and Lamech ... There is nothing in the text to support the notion that Abraham should not have taken Hagar, that's your opinion. God did not correct him for that, the consequences were a direct result of Hagars lack of obedience and reverence for her master (Sarah), not the polygynous household arrangement. This is why God sent her back and told her to submit. Lamech was the first mentioned with 2 wives, but nothing at all bad was reported regarding his marriages, it's a fallacy to claim that because Lamech was supposed to be a bad man, that polygyny is guilt by association. You'd have to then also consider monogamous marriage inherently bad as the first one led to sin and death, and one of their sons murdered the other. We don't do that with monogamous marriages, we shouldn't with polygynous marriages either. Place the sin where the sin is, and there is no sin in a man covering more than 1 wife. I am genuinely surprised to hear a Christian pastor take the stance you took her and I commend you for at least having the courage to go as far as you did, but I hope that you read this and really consider the consequences of the end of your statement and making it a matter of reproach, and whether or not you can truly back that up with scripture, because a biblical understanding of polygyny (which is just a man having multiple wives/marriages) directly teaches and greatly impacts the biblical understanding of patriarchy, headship, submission, family structure, and so on. A polygynous household very clearly illustrates the headship and authority structure when done properly. We are told that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all reclining in the kingdom, 2 known polygynous men and 1 (assumed) monogamous man. That information + the understanding that not a single mention of rebuke, condemnation or even correction to the men who covered more than one wife can be found in scripture, should inform how we treat the practice, not our culture or traditions, something to seriously consider as you teach.
@ Mr Monay And also Elkana who had two wives and was blessed by God through one of his wife ( Hannah). Where did God rebuke Elkana for being "adulterous" as the modern teachers say ? They have made all that up , pandering to female jealousy. That's all.
@@framboise595 I would argue also that it's a worshipping of false gods and their marriage customs (exclusive monogamy-only, greek/roman gods and roman law built from it) before Yahweh and His laws, His ways which clearly allow for monogamy, polygyny, and concubinage. The enemy has infiltrated the church and has the majority of Christians following in the ways of pagan Rome, rather than Yahweh and His laws.
@@framboise595 I simply mean that concubines within the scriptures were considered "wives" but of a different status, Hagar was a concubine of Abraham, as she was Sarah's servant, but when given to Abraham to bear a child, that was not considered immoral, as she was a part of Abraham's house, while she was Sarah's servant, Sarah belonged to Abraham, so he was the head/owner of all in his house. Same with Jacob + Leah > Zilpah Same with Jacob + Rachel > Bilhah So a concubine (a type of wife) was lawful in God's eyes and not immoral, nowhere do we see any rebuke of men with multiple women, whether they were free wives, or concubine wives. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but they were all his women/wives. He was rebuked for taking foreign women who worshipped other God, who led his heart from God, not for having 700 wives, or 300 concubines (type of wife). Whether or not we have any modern equivalent to a concubinage biblically, that's something to unpack and try to figure out, but what I'm saying is God approved of both marrying 1 woman, more than 1 woman, and having concubine wives. What God did not ever prescribe or make law for was forcing everyone to only have 1 wife. The modern definition most would hear concubine and think of is just a temporary sex toy that the man could just swap out or replace at will, but that's not how they are described biblically at all.
Why do the actions of others control you? Does not God redeem and heal individually? Yes, you were wounded. But to stay in that state of wounding, is to flee from God.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
On the point of women leaving their husband due to not being emotional fulfilled this is a key indicator that the woman had other sexual encounters before marriage and preferred someone from her past but married her current husband because she wanted security.
This is why women being promiscuous is dangerous because it effects their ability to pair bond and not compare.
I do think it’s important for men to know a woman’s past and her red flags and not think her past doesn’t matter. Of course she can be redeemed, but women need to face the consequences of their poor decisions and realize that her past poor decisions will effect the stability of their future.
Very well said.
That is a very unloving and very harsh judgement. Sinners who are redeemed by Jesus like woman at the well are much beloved by him. I am one of those and am rejoicing in my Father's love.
Or... women who have experience of being treated well in previous relationships are informed enough to know when they're being mistreated in their marriage? The opposite situation being; women who have never had a previous relationship, without the possibility of comparison, accept the abuse, control, etc. because they don't know better.
@@aallen5256 No
@@carolpagotto5395 Sometimes harsh words are necessary, though her comment wasn't that harsh. It's not loving to continue to lie to women that they can be sexually promiscuous and have 5-10+ relationships in their life prior to "settling down with a husband" and there won't be any consequences on a deep level that makes it exponentially difficult to pair bond with that husband properly. Women are not designed by God for that, they are designed to leave their father and go to a husband, 1 sexual partner for life, unless he should die early.
The more relationships a woman has, even if they don't have sex, increases the odds that she will encounter an man who checks all the boxes, strong, attractive, successful, good leader, etc, but he just won't commit to her. Then she ultimately settles with someone that is less "ideal" (but a good man) in those ways but will commit to her, and will constantly compare her husband to the one who wouldn't (internally and sometimes externally), it's way worse if she is sexually active in those relationships.
The numbers don't lie, after 1 sexual partner for a woman, the divorce rates skyrocket and continue to with each successive partner.
Woman here🙋♀️thank you for calling us out. We need it, desperately.
@ Jules
Oh yes we do ! We do ! So much rebellion , so much sin , so much betrayal from our own sex. Too much is too much.
No they need to learn scriptutre and learn to be better men.
@@jilltoby8Typical female response. Always blaming men for their own mistakes. I am a man, and I don't blame other people for my sins. I recognize that any problems or failings that I have had in my life, all resulted from not seeking God's will for my life, or from not obeying my parents or taking their wise advice
1:14:02 “Where there is sin it’s always the man’s fault”
I have heard this myself from reformed pastors. I challenged them by explaining to them that there is an important difference between responsibility and guilt, just to get a “deer in the headlights” response from them.
I am a father. If my child breaks a possession of yours, my child is guilty of breaking your possession, and I as their father, am responsible for making you whole.
This is a badly needed discussion. Great job speaking to the historical events of the last 100 years that have fertilized the rebellious ground we now walk on in much of the professing christian church in the West.
@ Jack Jones
The West is so female-centric that it is gradually collapsing.
Thank you for addressing issues that most churches beat around the bush about or just plain won’t bring up.
Or worse it's always the husband's fault. Even if he's the one being hit. Then offer no correction to the wife
@@grantarmbruster6591True. Pastor's view of marriage is usually something cliche like "Make your wife happy, because happy wife equals happy life."
I’m 41 I attend a biblically sound church, I’m widowed 8 years. Before you call black pilled men “losers” know that I don’t see any single women in my age range attending this church for years now. It’s easy when you have a ring in your finger to call us single men losers but it’s not exactly that easy out here to find a biblical women. I’m glad your talking about all these things. I was physically hit once in my marriage by my wife in front of my kids and I also endured long periods of no affection. The church has drastically failed men and women when it comes to teaching the scriptures that are going to step on people’s toes.
Go to a different church’s Singles Night. They have them (pre Covid) all around. Find a good young woman and train her in your ways and needs. They are out there and when you find her, accept she is one in a million because it’s tough out there. Good Luck.
I’m very sorry for yours and your children’s loss. It’s huge. Hope your ok.
It's not any better at other churches. Most attractive women have already been taken. The women who are still single in their 30s or 40s usually are not attractive, or have personality issues or baggage.
@@nerychristian- I’ve never been married, and it’s not because I’m unattractive, have personality flaws or lots of baggage. I don’t particularly appreciate that I’ve never been married, but I can’t change that when the choices for a husband have been slim to none. Most men I’ve met over the years are worldly, and I will not be unequally yoked.
I do find that married Christians in leadership roles can be critical of single people in their 40s. I had to stop following some people on Twitter because of this. They assume I'm single because, as a woman, I must be a feminist focused on a career. They are incorrect. They fail to recognize that there are many worldly men out there, making it challenging to meet someone. I find it to be quite hurtful.
Finally! A podcast that addresses the root, fascinating discussion!
I hate when TH-cam puts Steven Furtick below your videos and I accidentally click on it!
Thank you for being honest about where intersectional dynamics are in the west and in our country. There is a lot of people in the Manosphere saying Christians are basically pushovers and I’m glad that you and those around you are proving them wrong.
Also Denver CO has an oasis, Trinity Church Denver (definitely in line with Doug Wilson )
Pastors and elders who do not rebuke their flock (individual sin or corporate sin) are pastors who do not LOVE their flock.
A lot of truth there. At best these cowardly 'pastors' fear the world before God and are serving themselves and their own status in the church machines they benefit from.
@ psalm 119
They rebuke MEN for imaginary sins but do not rebuke women for real sins.
This is what happens when you have salaried pastors. They treat the members of the congregation like customers. The customer is always right
its a breath of fresh air seeing the "Red Pill" and Christianity finding unity in each other
The Bible is very red-pill... but is not like secular Red Pill.
I personally know a pastor who married (after being widowed) a gluttonous, loud and contentious single mom who raised unGodly children, and who clearly ran her first husband out of the home. The more i watch her behavior, the more i realize he is living in sin with this woman and cannot be the pastor of this church. What sealed my judgement of this was when I approached them distraught for help with my whoring wife, and this overweight heathen proceeded to use this as yet another opportunity to hate on men... specifically me in this instance.
Several times over the year that followed i watched her constantly bully her way through the small church, and blatantly teach despite not being permitted scripturally... but since these weren't sermons, nobody seamed to care.
I am responsible to God for the upbringing of my 4 children, and that becomes increasingly more difficult now that I am a divorced single father, but I fight tooth and nail for my children and continue to teach and raise them in Biblical manhood and am clear on the truth for them... the 50 percent of the time they spend with me anyway.
Much appreciate your stance. I would just like to add, three things which go along with what was said. One, a communist, Lenore Weitzman, was one of the people behind the California No Fault Divorce Law, and her purpose behind the law was getting rid of Christian marriage. She said so in various writings, one being California Law Review, Volume 62/issue 4, Sept 1974, pgs 1169-1288 and in quotes in sociology textbooks on families. And Two, August Bebel wrote a book "Women and Socialism," 1879, which is available to read online, and is about feminism. Marx, Engels and Bebel were the fathers of the feminist movement. And three, in the words of Dennis Prager, who seemed to be addressing Christians at the time, "You fight or they win."
Reagen was weak and signed no fault divorce. Such a stupid thing to do.
@@JonathanSaxon That's it? It is Reagan's fault?
@@rebeccalindley153 He's the one who signed it into law, he's responsible.
@@JonathanSaxon I know he was the one who signed the bill into law. There's a bigger picture here. The law is all over America, not just CA, and look at what else the Left is doing today in the country today regarding women and marriage. Reagan did not start it all by signing a bill. Put the blame where it belongs. The bill was part of an ongoing attack on Christianity by the Left, which hasn't stopped and gets worse day by day.
@@rebeccalindley153 Sure Christianity has been attacked by the left wing. But remember that Abigail Adams wrote John Adams and told him the men must give women equality or they will rebel all the way back in 1776. The USA has been vulnerable to female rebellion from the very start. When you build authority on consent, and not on Gods will, you bind men to requiring the consent of their wives to rule. Which means women are free to rebel as they please.
All of the current problems are because men refused for the sake of not stirring up the feminist monster, to discipline women. And instead just doubled down on blaming men for everything, even their own wives sin.
I agree. And that is in large part due to women and Beta Males attacking men and the church when they do discipline women.
It doesn't help that men have few legal rights in marriage. Women know they can threaten their husbands with divorce. And the man is likely to lose home and children.
Joel and Eric - great discussion! Great last question and fantastic response. I think this era of tyranny against men - is actually strengthening many men in their faith to think “What do I need to do so my children grow up Faithful in the Lord?” as their top priority. Also, this is driving many men towards PostMillennialism - when they were once living the comfort centric lifestyle (e.g. deceptively skating by in the “age of leasure”)
We are looking for one of these churches in Fort Collins, CO!
I know I've said it before, but I'll keep beating the dead horse....Nancy Pearcey is a rock star in educating the reader about how evangelicalism came to be. She goes through so much valuable history in the book Total Truth. Lots of the episodes remind me of that book!
Yup. This still hurts 2 years later
I’ve been watching Joel for the last 8 months. I love your outlook and agree most of the time with theology and strategy for the country. I agree that regrouping is necessary in some cases depending on what state you live in in order to rebuild later and harden our position. But I have to ask, what made you the way you are? Was it the protection of your parents or did your experiences forge you in the fire of struggles? Our environment shapes us for good or evil but the scars we received growing up have strengthened us. Yes, we need to guide our families and find faithful churches that are few and far between but telling people to pick up and move can’t be the only answer. We need to recapture our local churches. Start in small groups and convince the faithful members of your correct position. Build from within the church first, then community, then recapture schools. The current ideology took over 100 years to take root. It will take at least that long to reverse it. We need tendrils everywhere and only regrouping in Moscow, Mesa, and where you are in Texas is not feasible for the large number of faithful, reformed Christians to only have three options of where to flee to. I suppose another answer could be church planting as I know Apologia and you are working towards and doing but that is still slower than reform from within the church.
Lead Pastor here. Excellent video gentlemen. I was once warned by a wise pasror that the biggest problems I would have in my church would come from women. He was 100% correct. The Spirit of Jezebel is alive and well in our churches.
The solution to this is pastors insisting older women fulfill the requirements of Titus 2:3-5.
Women don't need another Women's Bible Study. What they need is discipleship to become Godly women and stop being conformed to this world.
I agree! I am a women and as I age, I can definitely see this issue is quite prevalent. What I also am noticing, and have been guilty of myself, is women falling headlong into false doctrine via NAR, Word of faith, Women's Conferences, emotionalism etc...and their influence upon other women is multiplying....and the husband's appear powerless over their wives.
@@porchlights2268 Oh how we need your voice in our churches today. I pray that God will make you bold in fulfilling Titus 2. And if you already are, then I pray He will make your ministry fruitful! God bless you sister
@@thepolingclan Your response truly is an encouragement to me! Thank you!
Here’s a dirty little secret. My dealings with women have for the most part been Christian women and they always led with sexuality. I was not as well versed in scripture but now at 41 I am and it’s clear women are out of control nor are they corrected biblically.
Nothing new here. Women learn since childhood that they can get their way by shedding a few tears.
I love your comparison of women in church leadership and orcs 🤣... Fall back! 🤣
What about if you cannot move, starting A Church in your home, just like was done in Acts and described by Paul? Literally be the Priest of your Home.
Nothing wrong with home churches
Based conversation as always
this is such a good conversation!
I did a paper in college proving with trends (anyone can do this themselves) the correlation between spiritual realm and natural realm . It was a hunch. I was trying to prove that the spirit realm was not only real but effected the natural realm. There is an identical correlation between when Bibles were taken out of schools and the increase of fatherless homes. Theres two different years mind you. One when they were ruled illegal and one when they were completely eradicated along with prayer. The two events clearly matched up precisely. My mind was blown.
I showed it to my husbands cousin (who always challenged me on my theology and who studies trends) and he said, “I dont know what you have exactly, but you have something there”.
The introduction of worldly style music in our churches correlates with the rise of sexual promiscuity in our country.
What does your church membership and distinctives looks like?
The Son submitted 100% to the Father, we are told this is the order. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of the woman. Yet I've experienced countless times Christian women (and men) claiming that wifely submission does NOT mean "obedience" to the will of the husband.
So according to them we are supposed to read it as, Christ the Son, God incarnate, was 100% submissive and obedient to the Father's will, man is supposed to look at that and understand his target is to be 100% submissive and obedient to Christ, and when he fails, to repent, but somehow in that chain, when we get to the wife, it no longer means obedience to the will of the husband (which should be the will of Christ/the Father as he obeys his head) or repentance when she fails.... but her submission is something altogether different, it's mutual, or it's conditional, or it's based on her judgement of the will and whether or not it's in alignment with God's will.
Even the most complimentarian pastors teach wifely submission in a way that pretty much supports this and makes the whole thing meaningless.
@ Mr Monay
Spot on !
No problem with Christ , no problem with husbands but huge problem with women .
Woman first in rebellion
Can you post the domestic violence stats you mentioned? As in where you retrieved that information?
I also am interested in the source.
Their fathers were labeled abusive and controlling buy the state and the church said nothing. 57:00
1:14:02 I'm going to push back HARD on that worthless statement.
Which elders? They're the ones that got Christianity into this mess by and large.
Me and my house will serve the Lord, and that starts by confronting the blatant sin of those who dare call themselves elders, and be the spiritual leader in my own household.
If it's written, I believe it, although there is much I may not understand.
It's really off the topic of this video, though you do touch on it with Eric at the beginning, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more explanation of what seems to be the prevailing Baptist view of elders as synonymous with pastors. The SBC make this explicit in the BF&M, of course. I don't see it quite as clearly in the 1689, but it still seems to assume without stating, in chapter 26, that elder, pastor, and bishop are the same office. But 1 Tim 5:17 makes specific reference, among elders, to those whose work is in preaching and teaching, thereby stating that there are elders whose work is *not* in preaching and teaching. This might be better addressed in another video rather than in the comments here, but I'd be interested to hear this explained.
I imagine elders were men who had been believers for a few years, and who demonstrated spiritual maturity. Probably like mentors in the church, who took on other administrative duties, or who visited orphans or widows.
Not to advertise, but If you're looking for a like church in Florida, Bee Ridge Baptist Church in Sarasota! We're of like mind with these men.
We have the Law for accountability according to Paul, in Romans. 2Corinthians, Galatians
The law tells us what Sin is, and Sin has destroyed the West.
We need to treasure Marriage and Family. The Patriarchal Husband lead Family.
It may be antiquated but it worked at 95%. That abusive 5% we now know exactly what not to do.
We must counsel couples to truly know not just themselves and their roles, but each other.
Wow, that was courageous, man!
Excellent Information
Joel, first thank you for your courage to speak against the sins of women, women need holiness as much as men and the Lord requires the sanctification throughout His whole church.
I hope you have the courage to hear as well. The lament “Where are the fathers?” when it comes to regulating the behavior of the women under his charge, although common from preachers, is yet another undermining of fathers. It undermines the fathers because the church has been unwilling to tell daughters to submit to the law of their fathers and wives to arrange their lives under their husband. The admonition that fathers are responsible for their household, while true, is generally less than helpful when the church is acting in general agreement with an autonomous and atomistic prevailing culture of independent individuals as opposed to a covenantal hierarchy. A father who tries to counsel his teen daughter on proper attire is likely to be vilified as an overbearing tyrant. His own wife will likely oppose him, his daughter resent him and his church is more likely to hold him in derision than vocally support him. The church wants to hold men accountable for leading the home on the one hand, while concomitantly cheering on female rebellion on the other. How many sermons are preached against sexual refusal or defrauding the marriage bed? I guess the ratio as compared to say pornography is less than 1:100. How many sermons against “female pornography” ie romance novels and the hallmark channel of fornication fantasy. Again the ratio compared to the erotica men prefer is around 1:1000. Most preachers won’t even admit that “romance literature” is pornography- literally from (pornaio) fornication and (graphos) writing. Perhaps we need a separate term like fornography to describe writing and media that arouses sexual discontent and desire for illicit relationships.
My point is that men need to be both equipped and empowered by the church to loving lead, but even more needful in this culture is for the church to teach wives and daughters to honor the household head; to obey with godly submission and to bring their sexuality in conformity with the Word of God, neither the hint of promiscuity nor the autonomy of frigidity.
I have been of the opinion that the Christian way to address the sexual revolution was to repent of anti-sexual attitudes and to teach a holy and hot marriage bed. Sex belongs in marriage, that is to say it is not to be experienced outside of marriage but also the Christian marriage should be sexually prolific and fulfilling. The joy of married sex (covenantal copulation) should be elevated as the greatest sexual expression a person could experience rather than only whispered about in embarrassment. The older ladies are instructed to teach the younger how to love their husbands, that includes sexually. The ethical dualism of Augustine and the monastics still haunts the church. The acceptable context for sex has moved from covenant to “love” to now consent. This digression allows predatory male behavior to flourish and uses that as a cudgel against all male sexual desire. This is a big subject but suffice it say, the church is guilty of condemning the whole of male sexuality while affirming female sexuality as empowering regardless of its sinfulness.
Simply berating men for rebellion among women is insufficient. The church must work to teach women to abide and honor the patriarchal head while empowering and equipping that head to lead.
My recommendation as a first step in this direction is to teach men how to lead family worship and then require them to lead family worship several times weekly. BUT wait there’s more… also instruct children and especially wives to sit under the father’s instruction and receive it with honor. My belief is that with this first step, men will become better leaders, they will find is easier to willingly submit to elders, because they are no longer being undermined by the church, but supported in a concrete way. The practice is instrumental to raise children of the faith with faith, and teach wives how to biblically “pitch their tent” under their husband’s. This is only a first step, but surely more effective and pleasing to Christ than the current practices of patricide. It is difficult to teach respect of fathers while the father is disrespected from the pulpit. Build men up, teach and require respect from wives, that respect becomes a model of honor and obedience for the children to emulate. This is the post-mill method, repentance from the pulpit for disrespecting husbands and fathers while failing to admonish wives and daughters, but beyond that building strong households for the glory of Christ and the advancement of His Kingdom.
@ Dave Buehner
I hate to say but my own sex has proved to be Satan's best friend under religious guise .
I definitely hate it but it's true.
Post modern women have turned aside after Satan
Pastor Joel could talk a dog off a chain.
Pastor Webbon, thank you for these videos on how feminism has been the cancer in our society and churches. But I believe feminism cannot be kicked to the same hellhole it spawned from unless men take responsibility and lead by moral example. In the Bible, that is translated as "submit to Christ".
But my request would be (coming from a recently married man and always in improvement, and as a thirty-five years old, just like you), how do you lead your wife by example, with practical examples.
Would you please elaborate on a video? Because most pastors over here are beta, and I want a Christ-like pastor who practices the masculine leadership he preaches. I await for it! Jah bless!
@ Aramis Y. Cajigas
To get rid of that sickness called feminism , rule over women again and subject them to their godly duties. Genesis 3:16 / Titus 2:4
Titus 2:4 contains all the tenets of Patriarchy . If they're taught over and over to the young generation , they can undermine that sickness very quickly.
Men don't have to lead by example but to RULE and enforce God's standards and giving women no choice.
Thinking like yours is what keeps feminism going. We have to stop making excuses for women. You are still blaming men for what women are doing. It's actually the other way around. A man cannot lead in his home unless the woman submits to him. It doesn't matter how spiritual the man is. My dad is a really spiritual and biblically sound man, but my mom still refused to submit to him.
@@nerychristian That's so true, and sad at the same time. Maybe your father (just like many fathers) chose a bad woman, just like many men have bad mommas. And by men being better, maybe they will be better equipped in the future to choose better women.
@@aramisy.cajigas744 LOL. Once again you are blaming the men for the fact that women refuse to submit to their husbands. LOL.
@@nerychristian In part is a man's fault, if he chooses bad women. Is a man's responsibility not to.
As an Evangelical pastor for 44 years, I think I can say with some degree of accuracy that evangelical churches have become very gynocentric. I can attest to the fact that pastors have become far more willing to avoid the hard truths of Scripture--particularly in regard to Feminism and its impact on Christian women.
One example is how pastors have eliminated from their wedding vows for women, "love, honor, and obey."
Another problem in churches is that pastors are afraid to teach about marriage and divorce. And how, if you divorce, you are not allowed to remarry. And if someone marries a divorced woman, he is committing adultery.
@@nerychristian That is an immense part of the problem. Thank you. Marriage is for life by its very nature.
Just curious, why do you talk differently in your opening then you do in the rest of the video? Seems a bit fake even though I know you are genuine in what you believe and speak. Just some feedback
I just sent this to my wife 😤
How’s that couch? Getting plenty of sleep?
And you had the push of the theory of evolution that didn't help either.
As a woman, I am glad that Jesus and NOT even the best of the male Christian population is Head of the church. You did a great job of missing the mark on this one. There is a reason "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. God doesn't give gifts based on sex and we shouldn't be blind to that fact, which plays out in Scripture.
A redeemed woman is a new creation, Jesus has washed her whiter than snow and has a completely new start and is not to be judged by previous behaviour and this is from personal experience. I wasn't referring to anything else than that. You added to my comment something I didn't say. I've been divorced, not my choice, for 30 years and have trouble finding a man who measures up to the biblical ideal for a husband.
The standard for a biblical man is?
@@scottyyoch3537
The standard for a man has become what women feel and want.
Women's feelings now matter more than God's will or man's rule.
We are really in trouble.
🙌
Where are those statistics? Can you post them? Is this within the church? Each marriage is unique and the Lord needs to be the center of each marriage. Please post these statistics before you just ‘talk’ about them. It’s obvious this is rehearsed to throw out an agenda.
1st example of monogamy didn't go so well. Thats just a bad argument, btw.
It’s amazingly good stuff but the “churches” because they are so stuck on the rapture end of the world stuff don’t care what is going on in the world.
@ Frank Contraras
Yeah but they don't seem to be so stuck on those futuristic fantasies when it comes to call out MEN and calling husbands , fathers , men in general, jerks or knuckleheads as Mike Winger , the FEMINIST in Christian guise does so openly.
It is so bad.
Out of ALL the abusive wives, how many have repented and turned it around? I bet zero
Mine decided to quit abusing and give adultery a try to keep things fresh and spicy. Divorced since 2021, she’s been with her current fiancé since 2016. I now pay child support and get visitation. Praise the Lord 🙏
It’s like the abusive one got the blessing.
I should save my breath, but there’s so little dissent in these comments. You put all your emphasis on a wife’s duty to submit and nothing on a man’s obligation to be worthy. My parents were traditional, my mom saw herself as the subordinate helpmeet to my father, but she never let him shirk his reciprocal obligation to her and us kids. This created a long and happy marriage of deep mutual respect and love. I think your approach and interpretation are not only relics of a medieval mind, but destined to create strife and unhappiness in a wife and thus in your life. Only you won’t know why since you’ve pridefully placed yourself between her and God, subjugating her free will to choose salvation. Jesus is the way to salvation, not flawed husband through flawed church elders and thence to Christ. This is foolish arrogance.
I have never heard a Bible believing pastor ignore the fact that men have obligations in marriage too. I have heard pastors try to redefine or ignore a woman's obligation to obey her husband. The man needs to do his job as well, of course, but a woman's submission to her husband is not dependent on her husband doing a good job. It is simply dependent on being married. It does not have to be earned once you are married any more than a man's love and protection need to be earned. Man and wife both do these things because it is their job.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Blind obedience to a fallible human makes a woman so vulnerable to abuse. A culture requiring blind obedience of women to anything a man requires of her, anything, no matter how reasonable or vile, is a culture that cannot survive without physical force. See fundamentalist Islam, which enforces obedience with honor killings. Ultimately, women will rebel against abuse, pushing her from the religion that taught her to place herself in potentially abusive situations. Tragedy all round.
You may claim that men wouldn’t do that or at least a good man wouldn’t. But only a wife knows what her husband is like at home, and men don’t take an interest in another man’s privacy until it’s too late. The reality is simply this. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Your view is unrealistic and idealistic. It is also unbiblical.
You loste when you made the statement that the Holy Spirit was "feminine" ....
The Holy Spirit is HE the Holy Spirit. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Also, could you show me the verse where it says Jesus “beat people” with his whip of cords. Thank you (just can’t find any verse where Jesus physically hurts anyone)
If he fashioned the whip, and used it to drive people from the Temple (John 2:15), what do you think he did with it? Did he just threaten them with it? And if he just swung it around, making them think he was going to hit them, but not actually hitting them, is that really any less "violent" on his part? I don't believe it's explicitly stated that Jesus struck the moneychangers with the whip, but I think it's a very reasonable inference from the text.
@@danbrown586 ok thanks for that. So I’m assuming then that the bible does not say he “beat people” with a whip? We just infer it
@@psalm1197 We are bound, not only by what the Bible says, but also by what it implies--Jesus directly holds the Saducees accountable for such an implication in Mark 12:27 (see also Matthew 22:32 and Luke 20:38). We're told directly that he made a whip, so he obviously used it--it would be pointless otherwise to mention that he made it. So how did he use it? By far the most reasonable and likely interpretation is that he used it to strike the people he was violently ejecting from the temple. If you have a different interpretation, let's hear it; we can then see which one fits the text better. Though I'd question why you feel the need to draw the distinction of whether he actually struck the moneychangers with the whip he used as he was forcibly cleansing the temple.
Because we're bound by such "good and necessary consequences" of the text of scripture, I don't believe the question of whether the text directly states that Jesus struck people with the whip is all that important. But I don't believe it does directly state that.
@@danbrown586 I was asking the question because I’ve never read anywhere in Scripture that Jesus “beat people” . The verse John 2:15 seems to point to him using the whip to drive out “both sheep and cattle” and that he overturned the tables of the money changers…but I see no mention of him using a whip on people. Not trying to have a debate, by the way.
@@danbrown586 yikes....Jesus used his whip to strike people???....that's a completely fallacious idea. I think that the better interpretation is that it was a means of showing authoruty and gaining attention with the snap. We don't have any record of anyone being bruise or cut open and injured that should make us believe he struck anyone with it.
Jesus would be disgusted with you all.
Yawn...
27:59 - You almost have it 100% right here, and I was genuinely surprised as you spoke on this man and his wives and what they should do, but respectfully you dropped the ball at the very end. When you say "he can't be an elder" you may be right, but those elder requirements are debated, but I submit to you to consider that if he cannot be an elder it's NOT because his having of multiple wives is a matter of reproach, as that is not supported by the text, but it would be an exemption from taking on elder responsibility, which is not a matter of reproach.
Then you said "and you don't say that this is right or that he should do it again" ... that's mainly where you dropped the ball. You cannot as a Christian justify that statement in admonishing the man for having more than 1 wife, because we have no scripture to back that opinion up. It was never a matter of reproach for men in the scripture to cover more than 1 woman, not in the NT or the OT. For you to tell that man and his wives they can stay together but also tell them that inherently what they chose was sinful or wrong and he should cover no more women after that, will cause conflict, and it will cause that family to misinterpret scripture as they dive into it. Because that rebuke that the Christian missionary gave them, doesn't exist in the scripture.
Then you went on into fallacies about Abraham and Lamech ... There is nothing in the text to support the notion that Abraham should not have taken Hagar, that's your opinion. God did not correct him for that, the consequences were a direct result of Hagars lack of obedience and reverence for her master (Sarah), not the polygynous household arrangement. This is why God sent her back and told her to submit.
Lamech was the first mentioned with 2 wives, but nothing at all bad was reported regarding his marriages, it's a fallacy to claim that because Lamech was supposed to be a bad man, that polygyny is guilt by association. You'd have to then also consider monogamous marriage inherently bad as the first one led to sin and death, and one of their sons murdered the other. We don't do that with monogamous marriages, we shouldn't with polygynous marriages either. Place the sin where the sin is, and there is no sin in a man covering more than 1 wife.
I am genuinely surprised to hear a Christian pastor take the stance you took her and I commend you for at least having the courage to go as far as you did, but I hope that you read this and really consider the consequences of the end of your statement and making it a matter of reproach, and whether or not you can truly back that up with scripture, because a biblical understanding of polygyny (which is just a man having multiple wives/marriages) directly teaches and greatly impacts the biblical understanding of patriarchy, headship, submission, family structure, and so on. A polygynous household very clearly illustrates the headship and authority structure when done properly.
We are told that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all reclining in the kingdom, 2 known polygynous men and 1 (assumed) monogamous man. That information + the understanding that not a single mention of rebuke, condemnation or even correction to the men who covered more than one wife can be found in scripture, should inform how we treat the practice, not our culture or traditions, something to seriously consider as you teach.
@ Mr Monay
And also Elkana who had two wives and was blessed by God through one of his wife ( Hannah).
Where did God rebuke Elkana for being "adulterous" as the modern teachers say ?
They have made all that up , pandering to female jealousy. That's all.
@@framboise595 I would argue also that it's a worshipping of false gods and their marriage customs (exclusive monogamy-only, greek/roman gods and roman law built from it) before Yahweh and His laws, His ways which clearly allow for monogamy, polygyny, and concubinage.
The enemy has infiltrated the church and has the majority of Christians following in the ways of pagan Rome, rather than Yahweh and His laws.
@@mrmonay
Oh yes true .
We should not forget that we were originally pagans .
@@mrmonay
When you say that God's laws allow for concubinage , what do you mean exactly ?
@@framboise595 I simply mean that concubines within the scriptures were considered "wives" but of a different status, Hagar was a concubine of Abraham, as she was Sarah's servant, but when given to Abraham to bear a child, that was not considered immoral, as she was a part of Abraham's house, while she was Sarah's servant, Sarah belonged to Abraham, so he was the head/owner of all in his house.
Same with Jacob + Leah > Zilpah
Same with Jacob + Rachel > Bilhah
So a concubine (a type of wife) was lawful in God's eyes and not immoral, nowhere do we see any rebuke of men with multiple women, whether they were free wives, or concubine wives.
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but they were all his women/wives. He was rebuked for taking foreign women who worshipped other God, who led his heart from God, not for having 700 wives, or 300 concubines (type of wife).
Whether or not we have any modern equivalent to a concubinage biblically, that's something to unpack and try to figure out, but what I'm saying is God approved of both marrying 1 woman, more than 1 woman, and having concubine wives.
What God did not ever prescribe or make law for was forcing everyone to only have 1 wife.
The modern definition most would hear concubine and think of is just a temporary sex toy that the man could just swap out or replace at will, but that's not how they are described biblically at all.
We were fatherless because he was a wife beater. My friend because he iwas an alcoholic other as due to adultery. Don't blame the victim
They never blamed the victim. Did you actually listen to the podcast?
@@kathyhart2309 exactly right.
Why do the actions of others control you? Does not God redeem and heal individually?
Yes, you were wounded. But to stay in that state of wounding, is to flee from God.
1:08:10 Not trying to be heartless towards people not making the right decision because of fear. But are we not trusting God because of our Fear.