Posts Tagged god
The CEEC’s spineless response to the first female Archbishop of Canterbury
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on October 7, 2025
In an article published on October 3, the Church of England Evangelical Council has given a response to the recent announcement of the first female archbishop of Canterbury in the history of the CofE. They go on to say that they join Anglicans across the world in “praying” for Sara Mullally in her role.
The article goes on to say about the difficult time the Church of England is in and how it is set against a backdrop of “global conflict and instability.” Challenges and declining church attendance are sweeping their way through the CofE and the LLF process has caused division.
For no fault but their own, the CofE is an absolute mess and now they have made a woman the archbishop of Canterbury and it seems the CEEC is not very disturbed about this ordination. Regardless of how expressively clear the New Testament is concerning an all male leadership, the CofE just doesn’t seem to care. Men like N T. Wright and liberal vicars and writers spell out their outright revisionist nonsense and claim that St Paul was actually in favour of women leaders.
I was at a meeting with the CEEC during their opposition to the same-sex blessings and N T. Wright was broadcast on the screen and I stood with the CEEC in their fight for orthodoxy but over time I saw how they were claiming orthodoxy in one sense while denying it in another.
The Bishop of Lancaster, a woman, was at the meeting and a number of female vicars were present and it occurred to me that people didn’t care if 1 Timothy 2: 12 was upheld, so long as the women vicars believed in traditional marriage. This is a major fault of the conservative evangelicals, they are picking and choosing the texts they want provided you agree to disagree on the the ordination of women vicars. But what if what Paul was saying in 2 Corinthians 11: 3 that any attempt at female leadership is not a secondary issue. What if Paul was claiming that he feared the work Christ accomplished by overturning the evil the serpent in Eden was about to be attacked again by the devil.
Paul writes,
“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may be somehow led astray from the sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11: 3)
I have used the NIV in this quote for the benefit of CofE members who use this translation, because I want you to see the real truth of what is going on here. If you believe that it is ok for women to be ministers you are greatly deceived.
Paul gives his reasons why women are not to be bishops or vicars and why leadership in the church is reserved for men only because Adam was formed first and “Adam was not deceived, but woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2: 14)
Paul is here leaving one of his final commissions to Timothy on how the church is to be governed after his death. There was to be no alteration. This is why Paul wrote, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Paul’s greatest fear was that Satan was going to try and undermine what Christ achieved and overturn the restoration of Eden by deceiving women by manipulation just like he did in the garden of Eden.
Narcissists always manipulate women and Satan is the ultimate narcissist and he will not stop and cannot stop until he has tried to get anyone back of whom he has lost. That is what narcissists do. Once they have someone in their grips they never let go of them. Satan (the ultimate narcissist) is forever working to try and attack his antagonist Jesus Christ and undo everything He has accomplished. That too is what narcissists do. They hate losing.
For this reason, the CEEC has made a big mistake in letting female ministers join their stand for orthodoxy. They have lost the battle already. The ‘liberal bishops’ cannot consistently take them seriously because the conservative evangelicals once stood up against the ordination of women ministers and bishops, and now they have lowered their standards by regarding the matter as a secondary issue. It is not a secondary issue.
The officiating of the first female archbishop of Canterbury is not legitimate. Sara Mullally prays the rosary and catholic prayers to Mary and she will lead the church astray even further than you could possibly imagine. You cannot pray for that. You cannot pray for the Holy Spirit to use someone in an office that is contrary to Scripture. You invite the devil in when you do that.
You may disagree with me, you may think I’m going over the top and think I’m crazy, but I’m not, I’m warning you. Don’t fraternise with the devil. Don’t mess around with the darkness. Don’t think the Holy Spirit is guiding you if you are going against Scripture. Never forget that the darkest evil often appears as an angel of light.
The ordination of the first female archbishop of Canterbury is an act of hell and the Church of England is about to step into one of the darkest eras of it’s existence.
Turn back and repent and “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5: 11)
IC XC NIKA
Were Aquila and Priscilla joint church leaders?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible on September 8, 2025
Continuing on with my previous article on Priscilla, and my continued articles on Junia and Phoebe and we come to a passage of Scripture again used by liberal revisionists to usurp the unbiblical position of women leadership. This time we are looking at 1 Corinthians 16: 19.
Paul writes,
“The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” (1 Corinthians 16: 19. NKJV)
Revisionists liberals use this passage to claim that women can be leaders in the Christian church. But the passage doesn’t say very much does it. It certainly does not say that a woman can be an archbishop, rector or pastor. In fact all it says is that a 1st century Christian couple sent their greetings to other believers in Corinth.
So what is all the fuss about?
The answer is, there isn’t any fuss. The passage says nothing about joint leadership as the modern revisionist liberals claim. Paul was simply writing to an early 1st century church and says, “The churches of Asia greet you”. That is the churches that existed in the 1st century in Asia Minor, on the western shore, now modern Turkey. Paul writes, “Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord” by which he offers a warm greetings along with “the church that is in their house.”. This was a congregation that met in the house of this Christian couple and the apostle is being courteous to them. Paul is not writing about a state church or an institution or denomination. There were no chapels at that time. No church buildings. No cathedrals. No paid clergy. No archbishops earning a salary of £85,000 per year. These good 1st century Christians opened up their family homes for assembly’s of fellow Christians to worship together in.
Perhaps when this is considered we can understand why Paul is mentioning this Godly married couple. They were clearly wonderful Christians and perhaps that is how we should view this passage. Paul is just being very courteous to a couple who have been of great service to him in his missionary purpose.
Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers by trade who had been expelled from Rome (Acts 18: 2) and accompanied Paul from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18: 18) They played a significant role in bringing Apollos to faith in Christ (Acts 18: 26) as my previous article demonstrates. In Romans 16: 3 Paul refers to them as “fellow workers”. There is no mention of preaching or teaching and certainly no hint whatsoever that any woman could be a bishop, archbishop or pastor. and the greek word translated workers does not denote ministry. Thus, I see nothing in these passages of Scripture to cause me to agree that women should be ministers in the Christian church.
Paul mentions Aquila and Priscilla (or Priscilla and Aquilla) together in six passages, and in 1 Timothy 4: 19, John Gill argues the Latin Vulgate adds “with whom also I lodge“. Thus demonstrating the generosity of the Godly couple.
Thus, if we look at 1 Corinthians 16: 19 in an open light we see there is nothing in this passage to cause any of us to believe Aquila and Priscilla were joint church leaders. Paul was simply informing his 1st century readers that a growing congregation was meeting at that time in their home and since Paul mentions Aquila first, we should assume he was the leader of this house group.
If you doubt what I am saying and have been persuaded by corrupted church leaders and revisionist liberals, ask yourself a question: wouldn’t you have the courtesy to mention the names of a married couple who let you have a house group or church meeting in their home?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps you can see why Paul mentions them.
Does Romans 16: 7 say Junia was an apostle?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible, Theology on August 28, 2025
In my previous article I mention why Phoebe of Romans 16: 9 was not a deacon of the church in the sense of being a minister or preacher. Phoebe delivered a letter of Paul, and was a servant, and nothing more should be made of that.
In this article however I am continuing to explore the claims of revisionists who argue in favour of female leadership and I will show that Scripture does not affirm female leadership in the Christian church.
On Sunday I attended a CofE church and it was very unbalanced, women were leading the whole service, and there was hardly a male leader in sight. This is very unscriptural and leaves nothing for men who seek a male minister to talk to. Not only are there female reverends but female bishops too and there is not a single Scripture to support this. However, revisionists like to use Romans 16: 7 to claim that Junia (a woman mentioned by Paul) was an apostle.
Paul writes,
“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” (Romans 16: 7)
In order to understand the Scripture we need to get behind the text and understand it from a contextual viewpoint. Here it is important to acknowledge that as with Paul’s reference to Phoebe (verse 1) the apostle is writing to a house church in Rome. We know this because in verse 5 Paul references the congregation that met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila. Interestingly enough Paul speaks about the congregation not the place they assembled in, and since Paul previously mentions “Priscilla and Aquila” who were a married couple, it is probable that “Andronicus and Junia”were a married couple also. Ancient Christians recognised that Junia was a woman, however very little else is known about her. However modern revisionists like to boldly claim that Junia was an apostle yet there is not a scrap of evidence to re-enforce that claim. In all probability Junia was simply the wife of Andronicus and the both of them were known by the apostles.
When Paul wrote about “Andronicus and Junia” he used the term “my countrymen” or kinsmen. Paul uses this term elsewhere in Romans 9: 3 and this is within the context of fellow Jew’s so it is likely that Junia was Jewish or even a relative of the apostle. This is where the rubber hits the road, there is no way any Jewish woman could be regarded as an apostle in the 1st century.
When Paul writes Andronicus and Junia “are of note among the apostles” he is merely saying they were known by the apostles. Paul’s proceeding words affirm this when he says “who also were in Christ before me.” Here Paul is saying that they had been Christians longer than he had, and in order for a person to have been an apostle that person had to have known Christ and witnessed His resurrection (Acts 1: 21, 22, Luke 24: 48) and we have no record whatsoever of Junia witnessing that.
Commenting on this passage Albert Barns writes,
“it by no means implies that they were apostles All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before “he” was himself converted. They had been converted “before” he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honored with the friendship of the other apostles.”
This view is entirely consistent with Scripture and is contrary to the false claims of revisionists who claim Junia was an apostle.
Once again, there is no evidence for female church leadership in the Bible.
Will the next Archbishop of Canterbury be a woman?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, Reform, Theology on July 25, 2025
It has been six years now since I returned to the Church of England and during that time I have witnessed a very controversial era within the history of Anglicanism.
In February 2023 a majority of the synod chose to pass the unorthodox motions of the liberal revisionist bishops concerning the blessings of ‘same-sex unions’.
Since then the CofE has remained divided.
Personally I have been through great turmoil being in this denomination. Being very fond of the history of the Church of England, the early English Bibles, the Book of Common Prayer, the great hymns and the lives of the 16th century reformers who were ministers within the Church of England, there is no doubt to me that the present CofE (on the whole) is no longer the same church. After years and years of revisionist liberalism, scandals and corruption, each moment has slowly demolished the denomination brick by brick, and it seems likely that we yet again face another bigger problem that will not go away.
For the first time in history, the next archbishop of Canterbury could be a woman. With very few conservative evangelicals disagreeing with women leadership, it appears that many could embrace this choice and few will oppose it.
This could be an even bigger problem than upholding a Biblical view of marriage.
The reason I say this is because the Biblical view of marriage is plain and obvious. All religions generally agree that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. However when it comes to the issue of women leadership, even the conservative evangelicals have gone astray and many have played the hypocrite by embracing woman bishops who agree with traditional marriage, to their own advantage.
I say this because conservative evangelicals (within the CofE) speak against the liberal bishops and the synod for going against Scripture concerning ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘the blessing of same-sex unions’ yet they themselves go against Scripture when they embrace and promote female leaders.
Yet the Bible does not support female leadership and in the New Testament there are no female leaders in the Christian church. Yet revisionists pull out text after text and radically re-interpret them and the CofE embraces their claims because fewer and fewer men are putting themselves forward for ministry. So they play a legal game and use the Scriptures to create loopholes that allow for women to become curates, vicars and bishops. Pheobe was a Deacon they say, Priscilla was a co-leader, they say and apparently Junia was an apostle. It’s absolute nonsense.
The reality is that Pheobe (Romans 16: 1) was just a servant of the church who delivered a letter and judging by the context Pheobe was probably the widow of a deacon. Priscilla was simply the wife of Aquilla they had a church in their house (1 Corinthians 16: 19) so that doesn’t prove she was a leader, and Junia was known by the apostles, (Romans 16: 7) and there is nothing in Paul’s text to say that Junia was an apostle. Thus, despite the revisionists claims, these verses do not affirm woman leadership at all and in reality if Paul did affirm female leadership he would be totally contradicting himself.
On the contrary, Paul does not contradict himself and a majority of the Bible is crystal clear that leadership in the Christian church is reserved for men. If you don’t believe me ask yourself why Jesus chose twelve men to be His disciples and then read Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. Read them for yourselves and let the Bible speak. Don’t turn to revisionist teachers who promote their agendas and use you as tools for their rhetoric. Paul is very clear to Timothy that the reason men alone are to be leaders in the Church is because man was formed first then Eve and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression (1 Timothy 2: 13-14)
It is clear from 2 Corinthians 11: 3 that Paul was afraid that as the devil deceived Eve so also the Christians in Corinth would also be led astray by the same cunningness. Now imagine what St. Paul would say if he was writing to the Church of England today. They would probably reject his initial application for ministry and try and indoctrinate him with a series of sermons led by woman curates and liberal vicars and then hope and pray that he changes his mind when they’ve finished.
In Colossians 1: 18 Paul explicitly states that Christ is the head of the church and as far as I am concerned if Christ is not the head of this church then the body does not belong to Him.
Since the CofE has been attempting to liberalise practically every Biblical viewpoint in history and distance itself from the great reformers of the past, it has been anything but stable and I think their decision to make woman leaders will eventually be their ultimate downfall. Whether the decision to make the Archbishop of Canterbury a woman comes into effect this year or the next time around, it is only a matter of time before we witness yet again another great apostasy within the CofE.
“From Obedience To Freedom” Out Now!
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Reform, The Bible, Theology on June 12, 2025
In my previous post I write about my new book on the Ten Commandments. In this book I explore the topic of the Ten Commandments from a New Testament perspective asking questions such as these: Have the Ten Commandments been abolished by the coming of Christ? Or are the two tablets mentioned in Exodus 20 the same as those found in Matthew 22: 37-40? If the answer is yes then there is no Biblical evidence to reject these commandments as irrelevant to the holy living of the Christian man.
In an original edition of this thesis, dating back to 2007, I had originally been inspired by an old Puritan book called The Ten Commandments by Thomas Watson. I loved reading the puritans back then.
Thomas Watson (1620-1686) was one of the most popular English preachers in London during the puritan era. I was certainly intrigued by this book during my earlier years of theological study. Since then however time moves on and my book has changed. It has gone through revision upon revision until I finally reached a point where I was ready to publish.
Obviously the topic is controversial on all sides. For some Christians there should be given no place whatsoever for any aspect of law in the Christian life. I disagree with that. Yet if that concept was true, then what are we left with in Christianity? Outright lawlessness or a life governed by obedience to Christ in faith. Surely there is nothing within any of the Ten Commandments to contradict what the New Testament says about holy living.
When I originally began to write this book I was much younger and I was very convicted within my soul and daily I yearned for more of Christ. My soul eagerly awaited the presence of my dear Lord and that passion can be caught within the pages of the book. However much has changed since then and I’m older. Nowadays I read Puritan books much less, however I have retained my passion for the writings of Richard Baxter. likewise the King James Bible remains my favourite translation. For this reason, I have continued to use the AV within the book and perhaps I’ll save the reasons why for some other post.
But in the meantime, I hope the Lord uses my book and that it inspires many believers to do right in the eyes of the Lord. We must love the commandments of our Lord and live them by faith in Christ. When we do this we will find inner freedom within the divine legislation.
I have experienced this freedom many times.
However, I am presently in the Church of England (in some sense) and I feel a continuous burden for the apostacy that is crippling it. Will I remain, and for how long I do not know? All I can say is that if there was ever a time for the Law of the Lord to be remembered and loved, that time is now.
The Promise of God for all mankind
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Census of Luke, Christmas, Christmas or Nisan, Documentaries, Eschatology, Theology on December 18, 2024
Many years ago, when I was a boy, I was asked what my favourite New Testament Gospel was, and I replied “Luke’s Gospel”. For me, I think that claim still stands. The Gospel According to St. Luke is still my favourite of the four Gospels.
Luke’s Gospel gives us the greatest account of Christ’s birth. I say this because I believe chapters 1 & 2 contain the actual words of Mary herself given to St Luke. Luke’s Gospel gives us the reference to the census of Quirinus. I have discussed this census in a previous article showing that it may have been referenced in the Mausoleum of Augustus on the funerary Res Gestae Divi Augusti in Rome.
Luke was a very reliable historian as my documentaries have shown. In Kos and the Gospel According to St. Luke I demonstrate elements of his accuracy by visiting the Greek island of Kos and discuss how he interviewed surviving witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ. Luke references his accuracy himself in Luke 1: 1-4 and Luke’s desire was for the Roman official (Theophilus) “to “know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
Luke follows up his Gospel with part two (Acts of the Apostles) and those who know it are assured of the certainty of the events that happened.
As previously mentioned “I believe chapters 1 & 2” of Luke’s Gospel “contain the actual words of Mary herself given to Luke.” The nativity account contains elements of feminine Greek and in Mary’s account of the angelic announcement of Christ’s birth the angel says to Mary “behold you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-32. NKJV)
This statement concerning the kingdom of Christ and Him being given the throne of David was not some reference to a futuristic kingdom that Jesus sets up when He returns to earth at the second coming. Luke tells us that this kingdom was established during the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and was revealed to the people of Judea and Jerusalem by St Peter in his sermon contained in Acts 2: 14-39.
In Acts 2: 30-31 Peter says “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sword with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he forseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption” and in verse 32 Peter states that the things which they saw when the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 1) is what they “now see and hear.”
The important point to note here is that the promise made to Mary in Luke 1: 32-33 has been fulfilled for all mankind. God in Christ Jesus has set up His kingdom and it has no end and as Peter stated to the people in Judea and Jerusalem, “the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2: 39)
This Christmas remember what Christ has done for us and for all mankind. Let us turn our backs upon the things of this world and whatever you do keep your eyes upon Christ, and know that He is our Saviour, and our God, if we believe in Him and receive forgiveness for our sins and make Him Lord of our lives.
Hymn stories: All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Hymns, Theology on October 3, 2024
Way back in 1838 a railway man James Ellor (1819-1899) brought his local choir a tune. This was called “Diadem” and he had written the tune to be sung with the Edward Perronet hymn “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name”.
James Ellor was born in a place called Droylsden in Manchester and was choirmaster at his local Methodist Wesleyan Chapel and is also said to have worked in the hat industry.
Over the last few months I have been fascinated by this great old hymn and have sought to find the location where the hymn tune of this great hymn was first sung. Lo and behold I have found it. After looking through old maps and studying the location and all the related churches in the area I have narrowed the original location down to a site on Market St, Droylsden.
Today the original building is long gone but back in the 1830’s a chapel stood near and in between the location where a Co-operative Hall Wharf (dating to 1876) and an industrial building (dating to 1911) now stand. Thankfully, a local church meet very close to precise location so someone is still doing the Lords work there and there’s a tram stop near should anyone wish to visit. After all it is a very special hymn and should never be forgotten.
Today a number of versions of the hymn continue to be sung, and especially in America. This seems very fitting since James Ellor emigrated to America in 1843 where he returned to his trade a hat maker. So let us remember the words of this great hymn from the Methodist Hymn Book,
”Let every tribe and every tongue before Him prostrate fall, And shout in universal song The crowned Lord of all.
O that with yonder sacred throng We at His feet may fall, Join in the everlasting song, And crown Him Lord of all!”
I think all Christians everywhere, can agree with those great words. I know I can.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 