Precious Jesus

"Afresh, precious, precious Jesus, I resign this body to You, for doing or suffering, for living or dying. Will You accept it? Will You use me for Your glory more than heretofore, that You may have some little return for all the benefits You have done to me? Oh, do grant this request; my heart longs for it, my spirit pleads for it; and "if You will, You can." You know the hot temptation of which I am the subject. Bring Your glory out of it, and keep me from the evil, and it shall be well." - Ruth Bryan

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Women speaking truth

It has been very disheartening as of late to read and hear of many who claim women are not allowed to speak of Christ to men, either regenerate or unregenerate. It caused me to consider removing my blog and leaving the internet altogether, but that's not what God had in mind. A while back, I did a post on women preachers; God's word is very clear on women not being allowed to preach from the pulpit. Does that mean we cannot teach Christ, correct brothers in error, or proclaim God's truth ever? I went into the word of God and this is what God says...

Timothy's faith

2nd Timothy 1:5 - 'I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.'

Who taught Timothy about Christ? Who were his examples in the faith? Timothy's dad was not a believer {Acts 16:1}. Some would argue that women are not to speak of or teach Christ to unregenerate men; but here we find a mother and grandmother setting forth the example of Christ to a man from birth. The clearest evidence that Timothy was taught by his mother is found in 2nd Timothy 3:15, "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
  John Gill comments on this text, "The Jews very early learned their children the holy Scripture. Philo the Jew says (w), εκ πρωτης ηλικιας "from their very infancy"; a phrase pretty much the same with this here used. It is a maxim with the Jews (x), that when a child was five years of age, it was proper to teach him the Scriptures. Timothy's mother being a Jewess, trained him up early in the knowledge of these writings."
Albert Barnes' commentary states "That is, the Old Testament; for the New Testament was not then written; see the notes at Joh_5:39. The mother of Timothy was a pious Hebrewess, and regarded it as one of the duties of her religion to train her son in the careful knowledge of the word of God. This was regarded by the Hebrews as an important duty of religion, and there is reason to believe that it was commonly faithfully performed. The Jewish writings abound with lessons on this subject."

Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos

What about Priscilla? Look into Acts 18:26, "and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more carefully." Apollos was preaching in the synagogue, but he wasn't quite accurate in what he said. Again, I use commentary from John Gill, " these two doubtless had received a considerable measure of evangelical light and knowledge from the Apostle Paul, during the time of their conversation with him; and as they freely received from him, they freely imparted it to Apollos, with a good design to spread the truth of the Gospel, and to promote it and the interest of Christ in the world: and as on the one hand it was a good office, and a kind part in them, to communicate knowledge to him, so it was an instance of a good spirit, and of condescension in him, to be taught and instructed by them; especially since one of them was a woman, and both mechanics, and made but a mean figure: and from hence it may be observed, that women of grace, knowledge, and experience, though they are not allowed to teach in public, yet they may, and ought to communicate in private, what they know of divine things, for the use of others."
Adame Clarke is identical in his commentary, "This eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who was even a public teacher, was not ashamed to be indebted to the instructions of a Christian woman, in matters that not only concerned his own salvation, but also the work of the ministry, in which he was engaged. It is disgraceful to a man to be ignorant, when he may acquire wisdom; but it is no disgrace to acquire wisdom from the meanest person or thing. The adage is good: Despise not advice, even of the meanest: the gaggling of geese preserved the Roman state."
And finally, from Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, "opening up those truths, to him as yet unknown, on which the Spirit had shed such glorious light. (In what appears to be the true reading of this verse, Priscilla is put before Aquila, as in Act_18:18 [see on Act_18:18]; she being probably the more intelligent and devoted of the two). One cannot but observe how providential it was that this couple should have been left at Ephesus when Paul sailed thence for Syria; and no doubt it was chiefly to pave the way for the better understanding of this episode that the fact is expressly mentioned by the historian in Act_18:19. We see here also an example of not only lay agency (as it is called), but female agency of the highest kind and with the most admirable fruit. Nor can one help admiring the humility and teachableness of so gifted a teacher in sitting at the feet of a Christian woman and her husband."
There are some in this present day that insist women cannot speak of Christ at all, however, the word of God says otherwise. Those who seek to oppress women need to be shunned, ignored. Most who insist women are to be silent are of the 'Reconstructionist/Dominionism/Patriarchal' persuasion. God forbid women do not proclaim Christ to the unregenerate {family members, neighbors}, or correct brothers and sisters who are in error. The Bible gives us an example of a woman correcting a brother, OUTSIDE the synagogue. Yes, women are NOT to teach/preach within the church, they are NOT to occupy the pulpit. However, let's not go beyond what is written! Search and study for yourselves; God the Spirit will guide you in all truth.


Darrel said...

Glad to see the hiatus thing was short lived. Your posts and words and fire would be sorely missed, even for a time. It is always those who are steeped in their own importance that cannot/will not learn from a godly woman.

The tweaking, twisting, and otherwise deceitful use of Scripture has somehow been given free reign in Christendom, it is so much worse then I thought it was just three weeks ago at the first revelation of the heresies that are so evident in MacArthur's words. It's every where, people using the Scriptures to further whatever agenda they are hawking that day. God help us!

lyn said...

Thank you for you encouraging words Darrel. It can be so disheartening if we look around and let all that we see get us down; but we are in a battle for truth. I cannot be silent when so much is at stake.

I watched a video from JMac where he clearly states you CAN be saved even after you take the mark of the beast; Dora left the link. I was in shock, and yet, he's held in high esteem. NO ONE calls him out for what he falsely claims, including his false teaching on the blood of Christ. I was gently rebuked for that post brother; it seems you cannot speak out against the 'golden boy' of Christianity.

lyn said...

Darrel, I was referring to the post I did on the Master's college and the Linger conference...just wanted to clarify. I did put that post on hiatus for now...

Darrel said...

I noted that you had removed the post, but didn't know why. Looks like they all operate like other politicians by listening to who gripes the most. Stay or go, we were not told the whole truth.

The farther I dig, the more trash is uncovered. With all of JM's long term heresies the most egregious part is his "testimony". It boils down to an admission that he has never been saved at all. It's in a Q & A with Phil J sermon # 80-33 (@ the 15 min. mark). For anyone to give JM a pass on this is beyond my ability to comprehend.

lyn said...

Darrel, I did read JMac's testimony, and was shocked to read what he stated. He NEVER repented; it's as though he's saying he's without sin, he always beleived. Seems a bit arrogant, not to mention unbiblical.

Since they did withdraw from the Linger conference, there wasn't much point in keeping my post up; that along with some 'heat' I took caused me to put it into 'draft' status. I still say it's very telling that it took an uproar from folks before they'd withdraw. Then again, I am NOT a 'fan' of any celebrity preacher.

Blessings to you brother.

lyn said...


I did not publish your comment because, for one, if you don't have the nerve to leave a name, why comment? Secondly, you falsely accuse me of judging, which shows me you have no clue what the definition of the word is. I do have a couple of posts on judging, I hope you will consider reading them so you don't falsely accuse someone and in the process, sin against God.
Also - Take note, I NEVER called anyone a heretic! Those are your words.

Evidence was left by Darrel in reference to what he stated, I suggest you FIRST check out the evidence, then comment.

As for JMac's false teachings on being saved if you take the mark of the beast, read carefully these words from God,
'And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." Revelation 14:9-10

I encourage you to view the video where JMac falsely teaches one can still be saved even if he/she takes the mark -

Your comments will only be approved if you can debate in a civil manner, and not resort to name calling and false accusations.

Di said...

There was nothing uncivil about what I wrote and there were no false accusations or name calling on my part, but 'golden boy' might be considered name-calling by some. And when someone says > "JM's long term heresies" this is an accusation and it does indeed judge MacArthur a heretic. When something is discerned to be a heresy, you are saying that person IS a heretic, when a person is called a heretic you are saying they are not saved! You have just ‘judged’ a persons soul and this is what we are not to judge. We are to judge sin in the body, but not a persons eternal state.

As far as Revelation 14. that is the fate of ALL sinners, not just those who take the Mark. Think about it, were we not ALL sinners under God's wrath destined for Hell before we believed? Every sin, not just taking the Mark deserves God's wrath. Romans 1:18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against 'all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men', who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

The only unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 12:22.
Macarthur has a large following not because he is a 'celebrity preacher' but because he is one of this ages most knowledgeable expository Bible teachers.

Until you or anyone else is willing to read MacArthurs entire statment on the blood of Christ, IN CONTEXT, what justification do you have to say he is a false teacher. You're lack of diligence has caused you to falsely accuse him yourself. You say no one calls him out for what he teaches, but I beg your pardon, he is called out all the time. What's not happening is people make up thier minds and REFUSE to listen to or read an entire sermon. They make up their minds on snipets pulled out of context. That's not how the truth is discerned.

I’ll pray that the Holy Spirit will prompt you to seek the truth about MacArthur. I would encourage you to read and then post this on your own so people can read and discern the truth for themselves... Let seeking the truth be what is important here; not that an anonymous person sent in a post.

No need to reply, I won't be visiting again. You have an oportunity to seek truth, by reading clicking the link, now it's up to you to follow through to which I would encourage you.

And since a name is so important here it is...I hope the truth is equally important

lyn said...


I appreciate you leaving a form of identity besides 'anon'.
I just put up a post concerning a false teaching of JMac's, it concerns 1 John.

Did you watch the video I referenced to? Apparently NOT - For IF you had watched it, you would have seen MacArthur claiming you CAN be saved AFTER taking the mark of the beast, and you NEVER read the verses I gave proving him wrong. So, let's try this again - watch the video, then look at this from the word of God --,
"If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." Revelation 14:9-10 I will include brief commentary from Matthew Henry - ' If after this (this threatening denounced against Babylon, and in part already executed) any should persist in their idolatry, professing subjection to the beast and promoting his cause, they must expect to drink deep of the wind of the wrath of God; they shall be for ever miserable in soul and body; Jesus Christ will inflict this punishment upon them, and the holy angels will behold it and approve of it.'
Where do those verses state you can receive the mark and still be saved? They don't. Those who take the mark do so because they are unregenerate, and they will perish as a result. That's what JMac misses, and him stating you can receive this mark and still be saved is not found in the Bible. Are you SURE you want to side with a false teaching? If so, incredible!! But, not uncommon, especially in this day of 'celebrity pastors' who are exalted and looked upon as infallible - by the way, that's idol worship.

I used to defend JMac vehemently, just as you do. BUT, I see the sin of exalting men above the word of God. He does not teach accurately on the mark, nor does he teach accurately on 1 John 1:9, which I address in my latest post.

I don't put much stock in Phil Johnson either, for he too is a man, and fallible. Both these men make six-figure salaries, that is questionable as well.
Whether you visit again or not makes me no difference, I will NOT be bullied by JMac fans and treated like a criminal just because I and my readers challenge his teachings. I do not follow mortal men, Christ is my Lord and He is the only One we are commanded to follow.

I will ask Darrel to specify his accusations and write up a more definitive argument against what he sees as heretical teaching by JMac.

lyn said...


As for Revelation 14,the context of the verses are what's important, JMac states sinners can take the mark and still be saved, however, the verses do not teach that at all. They reference to the unregenerate who WILL take the mark and perish. They WILL PERISH, that's the context of Revelation 14:9-10, BUT that isn't what JMac teaches. He states just the opposite,and he is wrong. If truth is so important to you, why do you defend a false teaching?

You go so far as to justify JMac's false teachings by stating this "As far as Revelation 14. that is the fate of ALL sinners, not just those who take the Mark. Think about it, were we not ALL sinners under God's wrath destined for Hell before we believed" that has not ONE thing to do with what JMac states in that video! That's going down a rabbit trail to avoid what is actually said by JMac.

You did not refute the accusation against false teachings using scripture, instead, you provide a link to an article; an article written by a man whose salary is paid by JMac!

Is John MacArthur a false teacher? I never said he was, some of his teachings have been called into account by myself and by some of my readers. Be a good Berean and seek God's truth for yourself, taught by the Holy Spirit and NOT by men.

Check out what Darrel referenced to here - sermon # 80-33.
Compare what is said with Scripture, and not with articles from men who are on JMac's payroll.

Di said...

Thought no accusations allowed? > "Did you watch the video I referenced to? ""Apparently NOT"" - ... and you ""NEVER read"" the verses I gave proving him wrong.

I did read the verses you posted and have seen the video several times, and yes I read Phil Johnsons defense, ALL of it, including Johns letter on the blood, have you? I don't hold God's financial blessing against either of them - God blesses whom He choses.

And the $$ - money is not a barometer to be used to discern sound/false teaching. I went to Grace Community Church for 15 years in the 70' and 80's and the finances were always accounted for. I don't care what they make personally, how God blesses them is His business not mine. Envy is too a SIN!

It is not elevating man or idol worship when defending their teaching.

The book of Revelation or any other prophectic writing is open to varying interpretations and having a different view on any prophetic passage does not make for a false teacher.

Where in the Scripture does it say that if a person accepts the Mark, then later on hears the gospel God will not administer His grace and save them?

As with the Revlation verse this verse 1 Corinthians 6:9 like wise does not teach these people can be saved, and in fact already condemns them by saying in the present tense "they will not inherit the Kingdom of God' - it says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…" but we know from other passages in the Bible there is Hope for ones such as these who repent and turn to Jesus for salvation...God's grace is far more reaching then we would offer.

I see nothing in Scripture that dogmatically says an unbeliever who never heard the gospel before, who accepts the Mark can't still be saved IF they later hear gospel, repent and turn to Jesus.

Thanks for posting and engaging but I think we understand the enomity of God's Grace differntly. With the exception of blasphemying the Holy Spirit, I don't believe any sin is beyond God's Grace to forgive with true repentence.

lyn said...


This will be my last attempt at clarity.
I assume you did not watch the video because your response wasn't even close to what Revelation 14:9-10 actually says.

Before I continue, I must rebuke you for accusing me of being 'envious' over JMac's half a million dollar a year salary. Can you show me, from Scripture, where any elder is worth that kind of salary? There is no scriptural support for ANY man to make a exhorbitant salary such as this, and to still continue to solicit donations - I get them in the mail regularly. Which of the Apostles made a huge salary? There are no examples of elders/preachers ever making huge sums of money. I am not jealous of what John MacArthur makes, for my God shall supply all my needs. Your false accusation shows your spiritual immaturity and your need to better understand what it truly means that an elder is worthy of 'double honor' {1 Timothy 5:17}. That doesn't mean in salary.

Now, you ask me this, "Where in the Scripture does it say that if a person accepts the Mark, then later on hears the gospel God will not administer His grace and save them?" Apparently, you did not read Revelation 14:9-10
As I have already stated, those who accept the mark WILL perish, they WILL undergo wrath. NOWHERE in Scripture does it say those who take the mark will hear the Gospel and repent...nowhere. That is adding to the text, which is called 'eisegesis'.
Please, read these verses carefully, as they are written..
"If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." Did you see that? He WILL drink the wine of God's wrath, based on what? His worship of the beast and taking of the mark. The text does not say he can take the mark and then hear the Gospel and be saved; there comes a point of no return for some, that's what this text refers to.

One last verse for you, "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." Rev. 14:11
It is clear from these three verses, all who take the mark on their hand or forehead will perish. If you can show your proof text that states otherwise, then we can continue on this matter. Otherwise, I am afraid this debate is over.

lyn said...

I forgot to address the verses from 1 Corinthians - you left out verse 11, 'and such WERE some of you'. You see, Paul was stating who would NOT inherit the kingdom, those who prove by their lives they are unrepentant, who continue to live in willful sin, like those Paul mentions in verses 9 and 10, they will not inherit God's kingdom because their sins prove they are unregenerate. This wasn't a teaching concerning 'hope', it was a warning to those who desire to live in the flesh. Paul stating 'such were some of you' shows this was the former way of life for born again believers. There should not be any trace of their former way of life still lived out in them.

Now, this is an opinion of yours, "I see nothing in Scripture that dogmatically says an unbeliever who never heard the gospel before, who accepts the Mark can't still be saved IF they later hear gospel, repent and turn to Jesus." That's because you are reading the texts as they are given. As I have already stated in my prior response, the text is very clear- those who receive the mark do so because they are worshippers of the beast - this is their 'allegiance' if you will, to the beast. They prove who their 'god' is by willfully taking a mark on their hand or forehead. The word of God goes on to say they will face wrath, it does NOT say that if you take the mark, then later on at some point you hear of Christ you can repent - that 'option' is not found anywhere in the text. That is an 'added in idea' by MacArthur. As I stated, it's a practice called 'eisegesis' which is adding to a text something it doesn't clearly say. When we defend men over the clear teaching of God's word is when we open ourselves up to delusion.

Darrel said...

As one who has read, listened to and made JM a "go-to-guy" from shortly after I was saved 'til about a month ago when these things became apparent, it gives me no pleasure to read what I have read from the transcripts available at his web site and listened to him in his own voice say things that are in direct opposition the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to his unbiblical and HERETICAL stance on the efficacy of the blood of the Lord Jesus to cleanse and thereby forgive the sins of the elect, I will show two more instances of this nonsense.

#1. Sermon #1621 9-24-72 Heb. 9:15-28. "The only importance the blood of Jesus has is that it showed He died. There is no saving in that blood itself. We cannot say that the very blood of Jesus, His physical blood, is what atones for sin. It is His death that atones for sin, His bloodshed was an act of death. And we do not want to become preoccupied with fantasizing about some mystical blood that's flowing around somewhere. It is by His sacrificial offering of Himself. It is by His death that we are redeemed. Bloodshed is only a picture of His death."

These HERETICAL statements made by John MacArthur are in direct opposition to the truth of the Scriptures. Do not attempt to play the "context" card as it will fall on deaf ears, this quote was offered as the "tell-all" of JM's HERESY and though I did not write out the before and after lines due to space and brevity, read the transcript for yourself and see that this is not "quoted out of context." This quote can be found about half way through. Up until these HERETICAL words of JM there was little, if anything to dispute. And this is why it makes John MacArthur the most dangerous, most disingenuous, most deceitful, "evangelical" teacher (read false prophet) in America and perhaps the world today. Far worse than the charismatics he took to task in Strange Fire---and yes, I listened to most of the replays including all of JM's. He is worse in that he speaks a great deal of right-sounding "truth", his books are equally filled with much one could agree with, but the danger comes when such a man uses the teaching of truth to interject, by stealth and deceit (99% truth and 1% lie) to get his disciples to believe, repeat and live a lie. Here it is that the blood of Jesus Christ does not atone for the sins of the elect.

Since you were under his teachings for 15+/- years you will know the proper Scriptures to read that will totally refute the LIES that JM has taught. If you can't recall those Scriptures, get a concordance and look up "blood" that should give you everything you need to see that you have been taught a lie.

#2 Sermon #1625 11-19-71 Heb. 10:28-39. Again, a selected quote taking into account the "context" so as not to try and make JM say something he did not. "A man who is an apostate counts the blood of the covenant with which Christ set Himself apart an unholy thing. The blood of the covenant was sacred. It was the blood shed on the cross by Jesus Christ. By that shed blood Christ was set apart to God as the perfect sacrifice." So what exactly is it that we are to believe? Either the blood of Christ is all-sufficient to redeem (#2) or it is not able to do anything for a sinner (#1). If you are not confused, Di, you should be. Two "sermons" in SEEMING direct opposition to one another given less than two months apart. The before and after part around this quote is JM's definition of an apostate. It boils down to one knowing all the Gospel and still rejecting it. The Father is rejected, The Son is rejected, and the Spirit is rejected (insulted). I know you don't like to consider that you have believed a man for all these years has spoken lies to you in the Name of Jesus, but it is there before you to listen to and read.