|
Post by I do tooo on Aug 4, 2007 16:31:23 GMT -5
I hereby deny reproductions of any and all of posts made by me and any handles used by me at anytime on this forum. No permissions are given to discuss, copy or reproduce in any form said posts. Signed Anonymous Poster. (c) Bert, you should copy some of Brad Lewis' outrageous remaks and the nasty anonymous ones! on here about the friends and the workers are the children of the Satan. I am gathering stuffs for my 2x2 message board experiences.
Thanks, GIT for the suggestion. I hereby deny reproductions of any and all of posts made by me and any handles used by me at anytime on this forum. No permissions are given to discuss, copy or reproduce in any form said posts. Signed Anonymous Poster. (c)
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 4, 2007 17:43:32 GMT -5
[/i][/color] (Acts 9:2) [/quote]
Dear GiT,
BELONGING TO A CHURCH IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO BE OBEDIENT TO THE WORD: Christ is the Head of the Church and the Church is His body, many members in one body. Orthodox Christians also believe that to obey Christ is to not forsake meeting together (Heb 10:25).
WRITTEN DOCTRINE OR STATEMENT OF FAITH: Are you using a hymnbook, then, as F&W statement of faith, to prove doctrine? Why not just write out a statement of faith? Seems easier than thumbing through a hymnbook trying to show what you believe. Anyhow, throw on the screen a hymn proved to have been written by a known worker and let’s have a look.
THE AUTHORIZED TEACHER OF THE GOSPEL IS THE CHURCH? The hub of dispute is our beliefs regarding the Church, which we hold is the authorised teacher of the Gospel.
This doesn't appear to be reformed thinking--Otherwise, there was no point in putting the Bible in the vernacular in ANY language—one of the legacies of the Reformation. As another poster has mentioned, that sounds pretty catholic.
QUESTION FOR GiT:Is the F&W interpretation of the Bible infallible, then, since it is the only true church?
APOSTOLIC AGE WAS A ONE-TIME THING, THE BIRTH OF THE CHURCH: The apostolic age (Acts Church) is not one to be repeated—nor meant to be copied. I haven’t heard recently of anyone falling down dead in the Church for lying to God. Or anyone raising a dead boy who fell out a window. Or tongues as of fire appearing above anybody’s head -- or anyone being healed from touching a napkin touched by a preacherman. That’s why it’s called “The Acts of THE Apostles.” Now, they are dead. And with their death, went the office of Apostle. That was the birth of the Church. We have their writings. That’s what we’ve got. We believe through their words (Jn 17:20).
MANY ORTHODOX CHURCHES HAVE ELDERS, DENOMINATIONAL AND NON-DENOMINATIONAL.
USE OF THE WORD, “WORKERS” IS COMMON IN THE NT? It was common to refer to ministers as "workers"?
In the OT, one would not want to be called a worker. Seems to conjure up images of iniquity. "Workers of Iniquity" occurs over 20 times.
In the NT, I could only find a few examples of “workers” and a positive tone doesn’t seem to be the most common usage of the word:
Workers of iniquity Workers of miracles Workers together with him (refers to Christians in general) Deceitful workers Evil workers
Which ones does the “fellowship” have?
TEACHERS WORTHY OF DOUBLE HONOR PREACH THE REAL JESUS: If they proclaim the gospel of Jesus, which means they glory in the Cross and preach Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. I have yet to find anyone who could produce a real worker who preaches the Christ of the Bible, who is God.
WOMEN PREACHERS ARE NOT BIBLICAL Women had important functions in the church. I agree. But what is a "notable position?" Please clarify. If you mean positions of teaching and authority over men in the congregation, please give an example.
QUESTION FOR GiT: BTW, could you give me the name of a reformed preacher/teacher/theologian who condones women preachers, please?
Nowhere in the NT does it say women went out 2x2 and preached the gospel. Some “prophesied” which is different than preaching, since Paul lists them separately when he lists the gifts and offices of the church.
One could not say with certainty what Phoebe’s service was – it could have been knitting sweaters . . . or making prayer sandals--or construction work, setting up plans to build the first church! She could have been a nurse or a spiritual praying helper--says she was a helper, a "succourer of many" and of Paul himself.
But it wasn't teaching in an organized gathering of Christians (I Tim 2:12). Paul goes even further and explains why a woman shouldn’t be a preacher so that we know it isn’t teaching other women or teaching in general, but congregational teaching where she would have authority over men—because Adam was deceived by Eve (1 Timothy 2:12-14).
NT CHURCH MODEL: If you are going to take elements of the NT and throw them together and say you have the only true church, you must take ALL of the NT church. Let’s see some miracles -- have apostles that heal and raise people from the dead. Let’s see some people die for lying in church. And let’s see some women ousted from preacherhood because Paul, a NT preacher, said he suffered not women to teach. Or . . . is that apostolic commandment “not for today?”
THE SECT, THE WAY As someone else pointed out, "The Sect" and "The Way" and Christian (Little Christ) was what the enemies of the Lord called Christians.
At the end of it all, you still seem to be saying that a group of people called the Way in the Bible is the same group of people that worship today in the same WAY. Therefore, even though the scripture is silent on exactly the way to worship, a certain group’s way of worship is the best way because of the physical example set in the non-repeatable birth of the church era — therefore, the F&W is the only true church?
Christ's Forever,
Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Aug 4, 2007 17:44:48 GMT -5
Hi GIT. We are just completing our 2007 website, excerpts of which have appeared here the other day on the subject of church buildings. We want to do a much larger one for 2008-2009 which will cover all aspects of our church mentioned here. Your own material is always of interest to us. But I haven't copied any personal attack posts, other than the general statements made about us, for the sake of doctrinal response. Bert, you should copy some of Brad Lewis' outrageous remaks and the nasty anonymous ones! on here about the friends and the workers are the children of the Satan. I am gathering stuffs for my 2x2 message board experiences.
Thanks, GIT for the suggestion. Dear bert, Nathan, and git: When you post the "outrageous remarks" of some on these Boards, will you also be kind enough to state that these are a FEW of the remarks made by a VERY FEW of the x's who post on the internet? These remarks certainly aren't from the majority of x's who post here! Thanx! Edy
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 4, 2007 19:22:19 GMT -5
GiT, Please reply to my two posts above... GIT, Please reply to my two earlier posts in which I asked you a few questions..
|
|
|
Post by Which ever on Aug 4, 2007 19:29:08 GMT -5
I hereby deny reproductions of any and all of posts made by me and any handles used by me at anytime on this forum. No permissions are given to discuss, copy or reproduce in any form said posts. Signed Anonymous Poster. (c) And who would you be? too many anonymous posts on here so I don't know which post/s belong to you. Your real name please.One you want it to be. All of them (c)
|
|
GloryInTruth Unlogged
Guest
|
Post by GloryInTruth Unlogged on Aug 4, 2007 19:29:58 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] I hereby deny reproductions of any and all of posts made by me and any handles used by me at anytime on this forum. No permissions are given to discuss, copy or reproduce in any form said posts. Signed Anonymous Poster. (c)
Unfortunately you do not have the legal authority to deny anyone use of your material. Firstly, you have published your contributions on a free, online, international, public internet service and there are conditions for doing so outlined in the TOS, one of which is that you do not hold copyright to your posts.
Secondly, international understanding of copyright provides that it is permissable to make citations from other people's text (under the fair use provisions) provided a source and an author is included with the text and that it is not being sold. (And you can bet your bottom dollar that I will be including both author and source, and I will not be selling your contributions!)
Nice try! However, if you are ashamed of your negative commentary, and wish to prevent it from being more widely circulated, perhaps you should have thought of that before you put it onto a public board?
|
|
|
Post by Oh Wait on Aug 4, 2007 19:30:18 GMT -5
And who would you be? too many anonymous posts on here so I don't know which post/s belong to you. Your real name please. One you want it to be. All of them (c) My real name is Nathan. Really it is. You must believe me because I said so.
|
|
Gloryintruth Unlogged
Guest
|
Post by Gloryintruth Unlogged on Aug 4, 2007 19:38:18 GMT -5
Privacy Policy Please keep in mind that any information that is disclosed in forums hosted by ProBoards becomes public information. (Proboards Policy, 2005)
|
|
GloryinTruth Unlogged
Guest
|
Post by GloryinTruth Unlogged on Aug 4, 2007 19:54:36 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] That should be ST. Augustine of Hippo
Augustine has been beatified in the Roman Catholic Church, and is called "St. Augustine" by Roman Catholics. However, it is not normal to impose such language on the Protestant world - it's perfectly acceptable to simply refer to him as Augustine, or Augustine of Hippo, as a Christian historical figure.
Everyone claims Augustine as their own. Roman Catholics, and Protestants alike. Even the Reformers said he was their antecendant theologian. I bow out of this discussion and simply prefer to admire him and accept him upon his own merits as a good, honest man whose doctrine was influential, if not perhaps perfectly biblical in all points.
[Someone Wrote] It is not the Roman catholic church. It is known as the Latin Rite. There are 7 rites to the Catholic church, they are Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean.
Well, the Roman Catholic Church calls itself the "Roman Catholic Church" irrespective of which rite and liturgical practices predominate. My authority is none other than Cardinal George Pell, who frequently appears in the Australian media talking about matters related to the "Roman Catholic Church" (as does the rigidly conservative Archbishop in the Perth diocese).
[Someone Wrote] If you are using the Catholic church as an example please at least get it right thank you
Thank you for the interesting information about the numbers of rites in the RCC. I was not actually aware of this previously, even though I had read about some of the different traditions.
However, surely I can be forgiven the mistake. After all, if your religious leaders are getting it wrong, how can you expect someone like me - a poor ignorant man - to get it right?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 4, 2007 20:30:42 GMT -5
I hereby deny reproductions of any and all of posts made by me and any handles used by me at anytime on this forum. No permissions are given to discuss, copy or reproduce in any form said posts. Signed Anonymous Poster. (c) They'll never get it. But keep posting, Anonymous poster! It's still funny!
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 5, 2007 0:21:35 GMT -5
[Jessi Wrote] They'll never get it. But keep posting, Anonymous poster! It's still funny!
H'mmm... not a very nice tone here. I thought "Reformed people" were supposed to show love to everyone. Oh, well...
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 5, 2007 1:46:53 GMT -5
[Jessi Wrote] BELONGING TO A CHURCH IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO BE OBEDIENT TO THE WORD: Christ is the Head of the Church and the Church is His body, many members in one body. Orthodox Christians also believe that to obey Christ is to not forsake meeting together (Heb 10:25).
We in the fellowship believe this. I have written as much in my previous post. No one disputes this.
[Jessi Wrote] WRITTEN DOCTRINE OR STATEMENT OF FAITH: Are you using a hymnbook, then, as F&W statement of faith, to prove doctrine? Why not just write out a statement of faith? Seems easier than thumbing through a hymnbook trying to show what you believe. Anyhow, throw on the screen a hymn proved to have been written by a known worker and let’s have a look.
The fellowship does not operate on a written statement of faith. Moreover, I am not going to put one together because I am not authorised by the Church to write a definitive creed.
[Jessi Wrote] THE AUTHORIZED TEACHER OF THE GOSPEL IS THE CHURCH? This doesn't appear to be reformed thinking
It is.
Scripture itself indicates that the Scriptures are the possession of the Church and that the interpretation of the Scripture belongs to the Church as a whole, as a community. In particular it has been entrusted to specially gifted men. This has already been examined in some detail in the previous discussion of the Bereans and the Jerusalem Council. The Apostles did not tell every individual believer to take their Bibles and decide by themselves and for themselves whether the Judaizers were correct.... The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). (Mathison, 2001, pgs 237-253, from The Shape of Sola Scriptura, published by Canon Press).
And, since she has been instituted for the purpose of teaching God’s truth to an erring world, her duty to the world requires that she should leave it in no doubt respecting the manner in which she understands the message that she has to deliver. Without doing so, the Church would be no teacher, and the world might remain untaught, so far as she was concerned. (Dr. McMahon, 2007, from A Puritan's Mind: The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura in a Nutshell).
When it comes to church authority, moderns are trained to be immediately suspicious—any exercise of authority must be a creeping tyranny. In many churches, this distrust of authority is so far advanced that effective church discipline has become impossible. While true authority refuses to "lord it" over God's people, true authority will nevertheless speak without stuttering. "This is the Word of God, and that is not." (Presbyterion, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2007)
I confess to being amused at the voice of confected superiority. Jessi believes no one can be as Reformed as herself, and closes the gate to all others. In fact, she is an insidious bully - at least, she has harassed me since I joined - who presumes too much.
[Jessi Wrote] --Otherwise, there was no point in putting the Bible in the vernacular in ANY language—one of the legacies of the Reformation.
How does my statement that the Church is an authorised teacher of the Gospel negate the need for individual worship, devotion, study and practice?
[Jessi Wrote] As another poster has mentioned, that sounds pretty catholic.
When the term "catholic" is used (as opposed to "Roman Catholic"), it refers to the "church universal". I am assuming you are here writing about the Roman Catholic Church. As you may have observed, I am always careful to make a distinction between these two terms.
Moreover, the statement that the Church is the authorised teacher of the Gospel is consistent with the Bible and has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic argument of ecclesiastical authority derived from oral tradition.
The Roman Catholic position is that in addition to authoratative scriptures, God has also left authoritative traditions and an authoritative magesterium - that there is both a written and oral authority that will continue to the time Christ returns. Obviously when the Roman Catholic magesterium was corrupted, all doctrines and pronouncements following it were likewise corrupt.
Obviously I reject the existence and authority of oral tradition.
[Jessi Wrote] QUESTION FOR GiT:Is the F&W interpretation of the Bible infallible, then, since it is the only true church?
No. The Church is always fallible, and is capable of error. However, we believe that in God's providence these errors are corrected by the prayers of the saints, and rectified by deeper understanding, given by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. Only God is truly infallible, and therefore, his words.
[Jessi Wrote] APOSTOLIC AGE WAS A ONE-TIME THING, THE BIRTH OF THE CHURCH: The apostolic age (Acts Church) is not one to be repeated—nor meant to be copied.
Where is this asserted in Holy Scripture? Upon what basis do you maintain that the Church established by the Apostles "is not to be copied"? The Apostle Paul himself wrote, "Be ye imitators of me as I am of Christ", and again, "Keep the traditions I have passed on to you". Furthermore, all the churches established by the Apostles followed the same basic pattern of organisation.
On this issue, you are speaking from a void; a chasm; a silence. As such your opinion is substanceless, and in fact, absurd.
Yes! We do acknowledge that the Apostles are now dead, and that the use of miracles to establish and confirm Church authority, doctrine, and practice has ended with their deaths. But their writings are preserved for a purpose; and their teachings, confirmed by miracles, continue to be the standard of the Church. It is utterly ridiculous to say that there was an absolute point in time when the Apostolic Church ended, and some completely new era of the Christian Church began - like a pop out of nowhere.
[Jessi Wrote] I haven’t heard recently of anyone falling down dead in the Church for lying to God. Or anyone raising a dead boy who fell out a window. Or tongues as of fire appearing above anybody’s head -- or anyone being healed from touching a napkin touched by a preacherman.
So what? Are you saying that because there is an absence of miraculous events in modern times that we should ignore the relevance and applicability of the actions of the Apostles to our own lives? Your argument not only refutes itself, and also cancels out most of your own arguments.
For instance. The same argument could be made in defence of women preachers. The commandment that women should "not be heard" was written by Paul in the Apostolic Church, but the Apostle is now dead, and the Apostolic Church ended ages ago. Moreover, women seem to be better behaved these days and have apparently got it into their pretty little heads that they should not speak out of turn in church anymore.
[Jessi Wrote] That’s why it’s called “The Acts of THE Apostles.” Now, they are dead. And with their death, went the office of Apostle. That was the birth of the Church. We have their writings. That’s what we’ve got. We believe through their words (Jn 17:20).
There has always been a true Church on the earth. The Apostles did not give it birth:
God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged (Isa. 49:13-23; 60:1-14). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" (Rom. 11:18-24; compare Eph. 2:11-22). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing (Acts 2:47). (Easton, Bible Encyclopedia, 2007, from article Church)
Like so many of your confident assertions, this one is in error. When I speak of the "Apostolic Church", I mean the Church committed to their leadership and guidance, not that they created some new institution. I thought you understood this.
[Jessi Wrote] In the NT, I could only find a few examples of “workers” and a positive tone doesn’t seem to be the most common usage of the word:
It is even more common to refer to ministers as "servants".
[Jessi Wrote] Workers of iniquity Workers of miracles Workers together with him (refers to Christians in general) Deceitful workers Evil workers Which ones does the “fellowship” have?
Bam! A nice little dig. But I thought Reformed people did not make harsh criticisms and subtle innuendo. Like dolly adolescents - with whom I have had plenty of experience - Jessi has a way of stabbin' it in a very underhanded, unpleasant way.
QUESTION FOR GiT: BTW, could you give me the name of a reformed preacher/teacher/theologian who condones women preachers, please?
You should know better than to ask! You can find just about anything under the mantle of Protestantism these days...
This week, the Christian Reformed Church faces likely suspension from the fellowship of conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations in North America because of the CRC's 1995 decision to allow the ordination of women ministers and elders... The 285,000-member CRC is the largest denomination NAPARC, which it helped to begin 23 years ago. At 271,000 members, the PCA is NAPARC's second-largest member. (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive97/nr97-126.txt)
I am also sure that the Rev. Dr. Carol Bechtel: vice president of General Synod, General Synod professor of theology, professor of Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary, essayist/writer/author--and licensed harpist, of the Reformed Church in America would support women ordination as well! (http://www.rca.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=1949&srcid=2225)
There are a whole bunch of Reformed, or Reformed Presbyterian Churches that ordain women ministers:
The Church of Scotland Women were commissioned as deacons from 1935, and allowed to preach from 1949. In 1963 Mary Levison petitioned the General Assembly for ordination. Woman elders were introduced in 1966 and women ministers in 1968. The first female Moderator of the General Assembly was Dr Alison Elliot in 2004.
The United and Reformed Churches in Germany ordain women and have women as bishops.
The Reformed Churches in Switzerland and in the Netherlands ordain women.
The United Reformed Church in Great Britain ordains women.
I always find Jessi's statements about "Reformed people" to be quite amusing. She seems to imagine that they all have monolithic views; that Reformed theology is set in stone; that there are no differences of opinion within Reformed circles, and that all "Reformed people" are more-or-less perfect Christians. Quite clearly this is not the case. Which can only be a good thing.
Honestly! The only churches left that refuse to ordain women are mostly whacko, hardline fundamentalist groups, with heterodox beliefs, or Roman Catholics. Is Jessi in good company?
[Jessi Wrote] Nowhere in the NT does it say women went out 2x2 and preached the gospel. Some “prophesied” which is different than preaching, since Paul lists them separately when he lists the gifts and offices of the church.
Well, if we're going to argue from silence, nowhere does it say that smoking Weed is inconsistent with the Gospel either.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 5, 2007 7:29:52 GMT -5
MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH - Doctrines continued...
Firstly, the objections:
[Jessi Wrote] In the OT, one would not want to be called a worker. Seems to conjure up images of iniquity. "Workers of Iniquity" occurs over 20 times.
I have long ago reached the point where I react with suspicion to any sweeping statement about the Bible, particularly from hardline individuals who make no concession about their beliefs; refuse to refine their doctrine; and who never acknowledge error when and if it occurs in their system. A case in point is the above assertion made by Jessi, in which she would apparently have everyone believe that "worker" was an unflattering term in the Old Testament. Yet, is this true? Or is it a distortion?
Let us consider the evidence from the Bible itself. There are 17 occurences of the word "worker" in the Old Testament in the New International Version of the Bible. Of these, the vast majority of the uses of the term "worker" always refer to workmen, some of whom laboured on the temple. There does seem to be one possible use of the word in reference to those who "laboured" in religious duties at the temple, but even I admit this is clearly not a title for a particular function.
The occurence of the term "workers of iniquity" does not ONCE appear in the New International Version of the Old Testament, which is commonly believed to be one of the more reliable modern translations. It does occur 20 times in the King James Old Testament, but its absence in more recent translations suggest this is an Elizabethan rendition of a phrase, and not part of the actual text itself. (Interestingly, "worker of iniquity" appears only once in the New Testament). This is therefore a translational issue, related to textual criticism and not remotely doctrinal.
WORKERS - "WORKMEN" Ruth 2:21 ("Stay with my workers until they finish harvest") 2 Kings 12:15 ("workers acted with complete honesty"), 2 Kings 22:5 ("workers who repair the temple") 2 Kings 22:9 ("money entrusted to the workers") 1 Chronicles 4:21 (information pertaining to linen workers) 1 Chronicles 27:26 ("field workers who farmed the land")
WORKERS - RELIGIOUS Ezra 7:24 You are also to know that you have no authority to impose taxes, tribute or duty on any of the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants or other workers at this house of God.
[Jessi Wrote] In the NT, I could only find a few examples of “workers” and a positive tone doesn’t seem to be the most common usage of the word:
Workers of iniquity Workers of miracles Workers together with him (refers to Christians in general) Deceitful workers Evil workers
Once again, in the New International Version New Testament I found 23 references to "worker", and, with the exception of the one found at Luke 13:27, not one of them is derrogatory. Ironically, the only way to maintain your position is to make exclusive use of an archaic Bible version, which despite its beautiful language (that is three times easier to memorise than any other version), is nevertheless deficient in many ways.
NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE: MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH
DESIGNATION, TITLE, NAMES, CHARACTER
Married couples preached the Gospel alongside of Paul: Greet Priscilla [ Greek Prisca, a variant of Priscilla] and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. (Romans 16:3) (Note: Paul refers expressly to this couple as "my fellow workers" in Christ, which denotes equality or equivalence of function and activity).
Paul had many fellow ministers whom he described as "workers": Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys. (Romans 16:9)
Timothy, my fellow worker, sends his greetings to you, as do Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, my relatives. (Romans 16:21)
For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. (1 Corinthians 3:9)
(Note: Chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians is particularly important to our purposes in understanding New Testament ministry. Unfortunately this passage has been misinterpreted for hundreds of years to refer to Purgatory, "trial by fire" of the saints, or judgement by God of his Church. In fact, this entire chapter, and the beginning the chapter following, refer expressly to ministers and their function, labour and work in the Church. Hence I will later revisit this chapter with a comprehensive exegesis on a verse-by-verse basis - although not in this post; this will be a time-consuming task.)
Paul appealed to his status as worker when addressing believers: As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. (2 Corinthians 6:1)
We maintain, therefore, that unlike the Old Testament where the term "worker" mostly means "labourer" or some such equivalent, in the New Testament its occurence clearly refers to men and women who preach the Gospel:
But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. (Philippians 2:25)
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, [ Or loyal Syzygus] help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:3) (Note: This reference is of particular interest to us, because it expressly mentions women promoting the Gospel "at Paul's side". These women were irrefutably working in harmony with Clement and other workers, and as such are classified together with them as workers.)
The term "worker" is used in reference to those who preached: And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers. (Philemon 1:24) (Note: This reference is also of considerable interest because unlike other lists of people provided by Paul about whom we can learn little, we do happen to know a considerable amount about Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, whose mother's house was the location of the prayer meeting for Peter's release from prison. We know that Mark was an evangelist in the Church. We are all well-aware that Luke was also a Gentile evangelist. We know less about Aristarchus - only that he was Paul's companion, and shared his imprisonment at Rome. Demas was also Paul's companion, and also shared his first imprisonment at Rome, but unfortunately, was overcome by the love of the world and he deserted the Apostle. The most important point amongst all this, however, is that all of these men performed an evangelistic function, and all were labelled "fellow workers" by Paul.)
"Servant" was also a designation for minister; as "one who serves" another mightier than himself: Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. (Acts 4:29)
Jesus himself used the term "servant": " 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. (Acts 26:16)
Both men and women would prophesy Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
Women were included among the "servants": I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [ Or deaconess] of the church in Cenchrea. (Romans 16:1)
Apostles and ministers were labelled "servants" together: Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons (Philippians 1:1)
"Servants" and "ministers" are expressly linked together: You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf (Colossians 1:7)
Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. (Colossians 4:7)
Ministers are called to be "servants of the Gospel": if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. (Colossians 1:23)
The purpose of this survey is not to justify any practices, except (at this point in time) to explain that referring to a minister as "worker" or "servant" is perfectly biblical, and indeed, far more so than calling anyone "pastor", "priest" etc. Of course, correct terminology does not at this stage prove anything, except that we in the fellowship have a good understanding of what it means to be a "worker" in the "harvest field of the Lord" (the primary analogy in the New Testament of preaching ministry), and what is meant by "servant".
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 5, 2007 23:36:42 GMT -5
THE AUTHORIZED TEACHER OF THE GOSPEL IS THE CHURCH? www.mbrem.com/shorttakes/chrules.htmI think our disagreement may lie in the definition of CHURCH and the definition of TEACHER. Few workers seem educated beyond high school, which really negates the ability of MOST to teach Scripture with authority. The F&W, (of which, like Nathan, I would guess you are not a member, but just like to argue their position), on the other hand, prefer oral tradition and prefer nothing written down about their doctrinal beliefs because it would be too easy to point out the error. They are slick that way. They know that what is written down and signed by real people with real names can be scrutinized and someone would be held accountable and would have to answer. Why do you think the F&W do not have a written, doctrinal statement of faith, and why is that OK for you, since you lift quote after quote of Christian theologians and writers, who have all signed their names to a piece they have written? I will say you are quoting them because they have written something and signed their name to it. Why don’t you quote a “worker?” Do you not adhere to what they tell you and want to spread abroad the “workers’” message about Jesus? Why are you quoting these other people who are not in the F&W, the “one true church?” APOSTOLIC AGE WAS A ONE-TIME THINGTHE BIRTH OF THE CHURCH: The apostolic age (Acts Church) is not one to be repeated—nor meant to be copied.I never said the Apostles gave the church its birth. I did not mean so much the ORGANIZATION of a church repeated or copied, but the events of the Acts Church, on the Day of Pentecost and after—and, of course, the dying out of the office of Apostle with the death of the Apostles. You don’t think there are still apostles, do you? Read the words of Jesus, even before His death: Jesus said, “I WILL build my church . . . “ future tense, which certainly indicates something new called a CHURCH that was different in that this was the NEW COVENANT, found in the God Man, Jesus Christ – Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.But let's not use that archaic KJV. By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear (NIV).And the foundation of the church the apostles ( Eph 2:20) – which means it was new then, just the foundation . . . now, we are building on that, with the chief cornerstone being Jesus, yes? New. New Covenant. He makes all things new. Put on the new man. You don’t deny the New Covenant, do you? [Jessi Wrote] I haven’t heard recently of anyone falling down dead in the Church for lying to God. Or anyone raising a dead boy who fell out a window. Or tongues as of fire appearing above anybody’s head -- or anyone being healed from touching a napkin touched by a preacherman. But we have his words, inscripturated, — clearly stating inerrantly the following: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. KJV
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. NIVThe difference is that there are no apostles anymore, regular Christians do not possess the “sign gifts” that the apostles did. The Bible says what it says. This is not a difficult passage insofar as sentence construction and translation is concerned. It says what it says. Yet, not just people in cults, but true Christians don’t believe it. I wonder why. Perhaps because they don’t want to submit to the Holy Word. QUESTION FOR GiT: BTW, could you give me the name of a reformed preacher/teacher/theologian who condones women preachers, please? I'm glad that you answered by lifting all the quotes, because you proved my point about the F&W not writing anything down. If you want something written and signed by people who aren't afraid to do so--because they have nothing to hide, you cannot go to anyone in the F&W. You must go outside the "one true church" to get it. What does that say about "the fellowhip -- and their secrecy?" Just as many people say, “I am a Christian” and are not – so many say, “I am a reformed Christian” and yet they do not abide by the doctrine of the reformers. Anyone can call himself reformed and not be reformed. Yourself, for instance. For following exactly what the Inerrant Word says, we are wacko? SPEAKING OF ORDINATION: Are you not aware that F&W ordain neither men OR women? If ordination, then, is so important to you, and you call anyone who does not ordain women "wacko . . . I think you just called yourself a couple of names. I believe you may not realize that F&W do not ordain. Did you know this? I do not think you are F&W at all, since it appears you did not know this. Do you have an explanation? Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
GloryInTruth Unlogged
Guest
|
Post by GloryInTruth Unlogged on Aug 6, 2007 2:25:38 GMT -5
[Jessi Wrote] (of which, like Nathan, I would guess you are not a member, but just like to argue their position)
Is this a joke?
I am professing, attend fellowship meetings regularly, and am a baptised communicant in the fellowship.
I guess when you have little substance to argue, you need to make condemnations like this.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 6, 2007 3:29:41 GMT -5
Jessi,
Again you prove my point that you cannot engage in any meaningful way with a doctrinal argument. In this post you have used the tactics of evasion (failure to adhere to the point in view), of ad hominem attack (making judgements about the person not the argument), and refusing to make any valid counterpoints. In short, you are a slippery customer!
Let us see what you have to tell us today:
[Jessi Wrote] I think our disagreement may lie in the definition of CHURCH and the definition of TEACHER.
I doubt this is the source of our disagreement. I have been referring constantly to the Church as a teacher - after all, one of the fundamental beliefs of the Reformation (and indeed Protestantism) is the "priesthood of all believers". (It does not surprise me that you have not mentioned this in our interactions, because I do not consider you very knowlegeable about the theology you profess to uphold, or its historical development.)
Hence the entire Church is engaged in the act of teaching, by lip, by life, by service the world. However, certain men and women in the Church are called to preach the Gospel, hence teaching both the world and the saints in a much more authoritive and explicit way those things which have already been committed to them.
[Jessi Wrote] Few workers seem educated beyond high school, which really negates the ability of MOST to teach Scripture with authority.
Why? The Apostles themselves were mostly unlearned men, as you pointed out to me in a previous post. Most of them would have possessed less academic understanding than the average high school graduate, yet they were all fine men able to expound and proclaim the Gospel well.
Moreover, you have absolutely no evidence for your assertion. In my state, there is a former engineer, doctor, nurse, barrister and university languages lecturer among the staff. This represents significant learning. What you claim above is merely an assertion; a speculation; a belief that is not empirical or universal.
[Jessi Wrote] The F&W, (of which, like Nathan, I would guess you are not a member, but just like to argue their position),
You mean, because I am passionate about my Church and about my beliefs, it indicates that all I care for is argument? Another judgement; another accusation - same old, same old. The same content as Brad, but with more subtle rhetoric, as I have said previously.
For your information, I have been professing for 13 years, regularly attend fellowship meetings (and when I am in a place with gospel meetings, I attend there) and am a baptised communicant in the Church.
[Jessi Wrote] ...on the other hand, prefer oral tradition and prefer nothing written down about their doctrinal beliefs because it would be too easy to point out the error.
I, of course, made reference to oral tradition as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. Here you demonstrate absolutely zero understanding of what is meant, theologically, by "oral tradition". The friends, by having no written statement of belief, do not enter into the purview of "oral tradition" at all, because we neither assume its existence, nor do we draw from its authority to justify doctrine.
We do not have a written statement of belief, leaving many things up to the individual conscience. Those things which we do profess and uphold - namely the scriptural operation of the Church - can be proven to be quite scriptural.
I am surprised and shocked that someone who claims to be so Reformed should have such a limited understanding of the theology to which the Reformation was a response.
[Jessi Wrote] They are slick that way. They know that what is written down and signed by real people with real names can be scrutinized and someone would be held accountable and would have to answer.
Well I am a real person, with a real name, and I am writing down our beliefs in this thread, and I am perfectly willing to be held accountable and to answer objections. So far, your argument is a substanceless personal assault, and as theology goes, is a dismal failure.
[Jessi Wrote] Why do you think the F&W do not have a written, doctrinal statement of faith, and why is that OK for you, since you lift quote after quote of Christian theologians and writers, who have all signed their names to a piece they have written?
Oh ho! As Yogi Berra once said, "It feels like deja vu all over again"! The old Jessi double-back tactics.
In your previous post you wanted me to quote a theologian or writer who believed that it was acceptable for women to preach. Because I delivered what you were after and made relevant citations that disproved your position regarding the universal understanding of Reformed doctrine, you turn around and use this as an argument against me!
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't ask one day for citations from writers and theologians, and when they are provided to you, turn around and claim that it only proves their superiority because they have written things down (which incidentally, you would disagree with).
[Jessi Wrote] I will say you are quoting them because they have written something and signed their name to it.
Well obviously!
[Jessi Wrote] Why don’t you quote a “worker?” Do you not adhere to what they tell you and want to spread abroad the “workers’” message about Jesus? Why are you quoting these other people who are not in the F&W, the “one true church?”
I quoted a Bible Encyclopedia because it contains good definitions of the terms I was using, and because workers are not in the habit of writing Encyclopedias. I quoted Reformed theologians because you asked for quotes from Reformed theologians. Here you are trying to deflect the argument away from what I proved, namely that you are in error regarding their being no women ministers within Reformed circles, but you cannot admit it because like Brad, you are infallible and inerrant. You assume biblical authority to yourself.
[Jessi Wrote] I never said the Apostles gave the church its birth.
Excuse me? Yes you did:
Now, they are dead. And with their death, went the office of Apostle. That was the birth of the Church.
You wrote about the birth of the Church smack bang in the context of discussing the role of the Apostles. There is no indication here that you meant anything that what the only obvious reading of the text would imply. You cannot turn around and deny what you asserted previously without also conceding that you cannot communicate clearly.
[Jessi Wrote] I did not mean so much the ORGANIZATION of a church repeated or copied, but the events of the Acts Church, on the Day of Pentecost and after—and, of course, the dying out of the office of Apostle with the death of the Apostles.
Well you say very condradictory things. Which statement do you stand by? That one you made previously, or the one you made today? You wrote:
The apostolic age (Acts Church) is not one to be repeated—nor meant to be copied.
So now you are modifying your argument. Ok.
Of course - and EVERYONE knows this - the Apostolic miracles ended with the Apostles. This was never in contention. This was never part of the debate. This is an entirely extraneous piece of material, which true to form, you pop into the discussion and pretend to maintain that this was what we were talking about all the time. Well it was not.
Neither I nor anyone I know in the fellowship imagine that the Apostolic miracles continue today. The Apostolic miracles were Apostolic, which means they were gifts that belonged to the Apostles. This does not mean their teachings, or the Church they proclaimed, or the Gospel they taught vanish away with the miracles. Even you could not be so foolish as to maintain such a thing.
[Jessi Wrote] You don’t think there are still apostles, do you?
It depends on what you mean. There were only twelve Apostles.
But, I recall that when I was learning biblical Koine Greek, the word apostolos was one of the first I encountered in my reading of the New Testament in the original Greek. The word apostolos can mean "messenger", "angel", or "sent one".
Hence I believe there are still apostles today - men and women sent by God to preach the Gospel of Christ - but they do not have the same office, authority, gifts or importance as the Twelve Apostles.
[Jessi Wrote] Read the words of Jesus, even before His death: Jesus said, “I WILL build my church . . . “ future tense, which certainly indicates something new called a CHURCH that was different in that this was the NEW COVENANT, found in the God Man, Jesus Christ –
The New Testament Church was of course different from the Old Testament Church, it being within the new covenant of grace rather than the old covenant of Law. No one denies this.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear (NIV).
These verses both refer to the covenant, not the church. Everyone acknowledges the covenant that began with the Last Supper is new and different - a "new and living way". Surely you are not confused between what is meant by the term "covenant" and "church"?
[Jessi Wrote] And the foundation of the church the apostles ( Eph 2:20) – which means it was new then, just the foundation . . . now, we are building on that, with the chief cornerstone being Jesus, yes? New. New Covenant. He makes all things new. Put on the new man.
Your citation is dishonest in that you have quoted only a fragment of a verse which supports your inaccurate view that the New Testament Church originated with the Apostles. When you need to resort to quoting half a verse to make a point, you know something is wrong with your theology.
The verse says:
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone
Apostles AND prophets! As soon as you cited this verse, I knew something was missing, because I have heard this passage preached all my life - that we Gentiles, the wild branches, have been grafted into the olive tree.
[Jessi Wrote] You don’t deny the New Covenant, do you?
Ah, the old trick of asking an irrelevant question. It would be like me saying, "You don't think Luther was a heretic do you?"
[Jessi Wrote] But we have his words, inscripturated, — clearly stating inerrantly the following:
The term is "enscripturated".
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
You assume a lot from this one passage.
[Jessi Wrote] I'm glad that you answered by lifting all the quotes, because you proved my point about the F&W not writing anything down. If you want something written and signed by people who aren't afraid to do so--because they have nothing to hide, you cannot go to anyone in the F&W. You must go outside the one true church to get it. What does that say about the fellowhip -- and their secrecy?
Evasion. Slippery.
You do not want to interact with the quotes you asked for, do you? They bring a blow to your worldview.
Reformed Churches are gradually realising the scripture does not expressly prohibit women from preaching, and they are changing their practices to suit. The archaic notion that women do not belong to the priesthood of believers, and do not have right to teach the Gospel due to their gender is plain silly.
Moreover, even Reformed Churches who hold to this doctrine do so in a very oily way. They allow women to teach other women; they allow women to have authority over other women; over teengers and kids; and sometimes even over little Bible study groups. But they forbid them to preach on Sunday!
[Jessi Wrote] Just as many people say, “I am a Christian” and are not – so many say, “I am a reformed Christian” and yet they do not abide by the doctrine of the reformers. Anyone can call himself reformed and not be reformed. Yourself, for instance.
For the record, I do not think you hold to Reformed doctrine.
You seem to be suggesting that these Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Germany, Britain, and the largest Reformed Church in the United States are not Reformed! Sounds a bit cultish to me, as though only you hold the Reformed Truth and no one else can approach it.
[Jessi Wrote] For following exactly what the Inerrant Word says, we are wacko?
You assume - informed by tradition - that you know the Bible forbids women to preach, but this is never expressly maintained. One verse, and upon this you rest an entire doctrine!
[Jessi Wrote] If ordination, then, is so important to you, and you call anyone who does not ordain women wacko . . . I think you just called yourself a couple of names.
Slippery. You need to be on your toes when dialoguing with you, Jessi. I never said that ordination was important to me; neither did I maintain that failure to ordain women constituted foolishness.
I used the term "ordination" because I thought this was a term you would understand to mean "license to preach". We in the fellowship believe in a "call" to preach the Gospel, not in a formal ordination practice. Either way, we have women ministers and you do not. Our women ministers have raised a harvest of righteousness, yours remain shackled to the pews bound in archaic tradition and nonsense, which even many large Reformed congregations are turning away from.
[Jessi Wrote] I believe you may not realize that F&W do not ordain. Did you know this? I do not think you are F&W at all, since it appears you did not know this. Do you have an explanation?
I did know this. I have always known this. Once more, you assume a whole bunch of stuff I have not written in order to attack your interlocutor. You base your assumptions on a vapour.
And that's not going to cut it in the truth stakes.
Readers: As I have consistently maintained, Jessi is inconsistent with her views, has no idea regarding any theology other than her own, is not even well-schooled in Reformed theology, and must resort to all kinds of speculation in order to make her points.
A substanceless argument.
|
|
|
Post by John Harvey on Aug 6, 2007 4:06:32 GMT -5
Please Glory In Truth, when you make a statement like " A substanceless argument" in relation to another person's post, qualify that statement by stating this is only your opinion.
I can see as much substance in many of Jessi's posts as I do in your own. At times, considerably more.
I say this out of respect to both of you.
Glory, you feel far too secure in your own interpretations to see that validity of the sound viewpoints of others.
As McGovern once said, "Knowledge has the ability to transcend reason and can blind a man to the trees in a forest."
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 6, 2007 6:14:14 GMT -5
DOCTRINES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH
WOMEN MINISTERS - OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
We are told by some that women have no role in the ministry of preaching. Consequently, it is maintained that the fellowship, (which has had women ministers decades before most other denominational churches), is in error in regards to their doctrine. According to these same "objectors", because only men may be preachers, the fellowship bears the imprint of a "corrupt" church.
What is the position of the fellowship?
Our position is that women have a valuable role in the church, and may equally share in the ministry of preaching with their male counterparts ("brothers"). As a general principle, leadership is generally carried out by men in the form of elders and overseers ("head worker"), but this is not a reflection of a belief that women are barred from such roles.
Unfortunately, there is an assumption made by some (though not all) that women preachers represents the height of "liberal Christianity" and that we must oppose this scourge in order to maintain our orthodoxy. It is held by extremely-conservative Protestants that because a number of notable theologians five-hundred years ago - the Reformers - influenced by their Catholicism, refused to ordain women, that this is the pattern for today. Roman Catholics reject women priests for a number of traditional reasons: "that's how it has always been".
It behooves us to examine the biblical evidence for these assertions, and also to consider the major arguments against women preachers. Do such arguments have any validity? If so, how much validity? And is the fellowship wrong in this regards?
MAJOR OBJECTION 01: The most common objection to women ministers is based on a single text found only in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, a particularly troubled and divided church in the Apostolic period.
...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. (1 Corinthians 14:34)
According to some, this text forbids women to preach. By permitting only male pastors and ministers, some believe they are being true to this text, and obedient to God.
Yet is this a logical conclusion to the text? Not it is not. The verse clearly says that women should "remain silent" in the church, yet even in churches that forbid women to preach, women are not "silent" because they are allowed to pray; to sing; and to proclaim "Amen". The interpretation then that some place on this verse would restrict women from doing anything other than breathing in the place of worship.
The Greek word translated "silence" here is sigao - meaning "keep silence", or in other places, translated "hold their peace". The same word - sigao - is used three times in this chapter:
If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet [sigao] in the church and speak to himself and God. (1 Corinthians 14:28)
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop [sigao]. (1 Corinthians 14:28)
Finally, women are to keep silence [sigao]. (1 Corinthians 14:34)
If we follow the same rule of interpretation consistently, as that established by people for verse 34, then we would have to say that the prophet (or prophetess?) speaking at the time that someone else recieved a revelation, would not be allow to preach ever again!
And if someone should ever find themselves in a congregation in which they do not speak the same language, then likewise they are forbidden to preach forevermore!
Three groups of people are told to be sigao. We recognise from the context in which the statement is made to the first two groups that it does not forbid them to teach or preach for all perpetuity. We must apply the same, consistent standard of interpretation to the context in which women are addressed. Let us perform an exegesis on the relevant passage:
As in all the congregations of the saints... Paul's teachings in this regard applied universally. He makes this introductory statement so that those to whom he is writing should not feel singled out; or feel that they are being picked on; but that they should understand that here is a standard, the same of which applied to all churches.
...women should remain silent in the churches... Note that Paul calls them to "hold their peace", "keep silence" (sigao) not to insist that they should not preach. Obviously Paul is not commanding an absolute silence, or otherwise women would not be able to partake in worship at all, except as a passive observer. Hence we need to apply some common sense to the meaning of this passage.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says... The verse says again that they should not speak, and then justifies this position by saying women should be in submission. Submission to whom and what? To God? No, because both men and women in the Church submit to God. Submission to men? No, the Law never commands women to submit to the male gender on that basis alone.
Submission to what then? The text gives the answer. The women must be in submission to their husbands, according to the Law given by God in the Garden of Eden. Paul reinforces this by saying next:
If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. What is disgraceful? For a woman to speak in the church. Why? Because if they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, not in the church during worship.
We must also look at the broader context of the chapter. What is the focus of 1 Corinthians 14? Is it instructions to ministers, and how ministry should be conducted? No it is not! Is it a list of prohibitions or rules regarding who or who may not be a minister? No! What is it then? It is a set of instructions for maintaining orderly worship. We must view the verse regarding women in that light.
We must also bear in mind that women were called to be prophetesses throughout the Old Testament; that quite a number of women prophecied in the New Testament; and that Paul speaks of many women as his fellow labourers or "servants":
Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant of the church at Cenchreae. She has often been a helper both to myself and to many others. (Romans 16, 1-2)
Greet Prisca and Aquila my fellow workers in Christ Jesus . . . Greet Mary who has worked so much among you. In the same way Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis labor in the Lord. (Romans 16,1-16)
Evodia and Syntyche who have struggled together with me in the Gospel with Clement and the rest of my fellow-workers.(Philippians 4,2)
What may we conclude. I could not write a better summary than one already written:
I, therefore, submit that what these women were doing was asking questions (the specific speaking) in the assembly of their husbands in such a way that both precipitated confusion and also resulted in lack of subjection to their husbands. These "women" were not all the women at Corinth, but they were married women. It is also implied that their husbands of whom they were to inquire at home and not in the assembly were in a position to provide the answers to their questions. Moreover, it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain. Hence, these women were to remain silent or without sound (as opposed to speech) IN THE MATTER contextually being discussed, confusion and lack of submission to their husbands. (Bibletruths.net, nd)
The verses misappropriated by generations of men to bar women from the role of preaching have been twisted to justify a tradition inherited from Roman Catholicism. It is time for some of these hardline groups to recognise they promote a false tradition, based on the false premise that men are somehow more holy than women, and better represent the "maleness" of Christ and his Apostles.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 6, 2007 11:37:22 GMT -5
[Jessi Wrote] (of which, like Nathan, I would guess you are not a member, but just like to argue their position)Is this a joke? I am professing, attend fellowship meetings regularly, and am a baptised communicant in the fellowship. I guess when you have little substance to argue, you need to make condemnations like this. You could be anyone, unlogged. Going anonymous on us? No proof you are who you say you are. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Aug 6, 2007 12:05:01 GMT -5
Dear git,
I would also like to see your post re: you being a professing, baptized member of the F & W church made under your registered handle rather than "unlogged".
Thanx!
Edy
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 6, 2007 14:42:24 GMT -5
I'm puzzled by something. I've honestly tried to actually navigate this thread and I'm not seeing any connection between scripture regarding the "Church" and the 2x2 fellowship, specifically. Is this simply an assumption that is being read into the quoted scripture? GiT, I don't understand how you can be such a strong supporter of reformed leaders such as Luther and Calvin, but consider their "Churches" to be false. And if you don't personally consider them false, I doubt that it's debatable what the overall position of the F&Ws are towards them. Same for Augustine....in 30 years I never heard a single worker mention any of these afformentioned individuals in anything but a derisive manner. In the last 5 years or so of extensive conversation with workers, particularly overseers, I heard specific denials of Christ's deity, the Trinity, election, perserverance of the saints, salvation by grace, etc.....both in private conversation and from the platform. I can understand an argument for the inclusion of the F&Ws in the universal "Church", but to lay claim as the sole - or even primary - members? No way.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 6, 2007 17:36:59 GMT -5
[Jessi Wrote] You could be anyone, unlogged. Going anonymous on us? No proof you are who you say you are. Christ's Forever, Jessi
Living proof that Jessi does not read the rebuttals I write in response to her posts. In one of my previous posts in this same thread, under my registered handle, I included the following text:
For your information, I have been professing for 13 years, regularly attend fellowship meetings (and when I am in a place with gospel meetings, I attend there) and am a baptised communicant in the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Aug 6, 2007 17:40:32 GMT -5
[Jessi Wrote] You could be anyone, unlogged. Going anonymous on us? No proof you are who you say you are. Christ's Forever, JessiLiving proof that Jessi does not read the rebuttals I write in response to her posts. In one of my previous posts in this same thread, under my registered handle, I included the following text: For your information, I have been professing for 13 years, regularly attend fellowship meetings (and when I am in a place with gospel meetings, I attend there) and am a baptised communicant in the Church. Could you please fill in the blanks for me? You are "professing" and attending fellowship in which church for 13 years, and baptized in the same? Thanx! Edy
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 7, 2007 23:27:14 GMT -5
[Jessi Wrote] You could be anyone, unlogged. Going anonymous on us? No proof you are who you say you are. Christ's Forever, JessiLiving proof that Jessi does not read the rebuttals I write in response to her posts. In one of my previous posts in this same thread, under my registered handle, I included the following text: For your information, I have been professing for 13 years, regularly attend fellowship meetings (and when I am in a place with gospel meetings, I attend there) and am a baptised communicant in the Church. I'll agree with you there. I skim mostly, as I'm sure others do not hang on every word of either one of us. Please. We all skim. Where do you live, GiT (probably in another statement I missed). Sorry I am so dense. Christ's Jessi
|
|
|
Post by mirror mirror on Aug 7, 2007 23:37:27 GMT -5
I have long ago reached the point where I react with suspicion to any sweeping statement about the Bible, particularly from hardline individuals who make no concession about their beliefs; refuse to refine their doctrine; and who never acknowledge error when and if it occurs in their system. So basically you are left with reacting in suspicion towards yourself, since you meet all these criteria. ...not to mention the fact that GIT believes that all non-2x2s are doomed to a lost eternity based solely on the fact they are not 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 7, 2007 23:53:07 GMT -5
MISCELLANEOUS PETTY ARGUMENTS AND BAD THEOLOGY: UNLEARNED APOSTLES: A THIN COMPARISON OF F&W WORKERS W/APOSTLES: The Apostles were unlearned according to the Scribes and Pharisees. But let’s not forget that the Apostles attended THREE YEARS of the MASTER’S SEMINARY. There seems no contest between ANY unlearned preachers having the same credentials as the “unlearned” Apostles’ ” qualifications to preach and teach. First because the Apostles were taught by the only Great Rabbi, The Holy One, Jesus, but second, their words became Holy Scripture. [Jessi Wrote] ...on the other hand, prefer oral tradition and prefer nothing written down about their doctrinal beliefs because it would be too easy to point out the error. We do not have a written statement of belief, leaving many things up to the individual conscience. Those things which we do profess and uphold - namely the scriptural operation of the Church - can be proven to be quite scriptural."Leaving many things up to the individual conscience" seems pretty willy nilly to me, considering that you have said the church is the only authorized teacher. But I'm sure I just misunderstood what you meant by church/teacher. Well I am a real person, with a real name, and I am writing down our beliefs in this thread, and I am perfectly willing to be held accountable and to answer objections. So far, your argument is a substanceless personal assault, and as theology goes, is a dismal failure.From what I see, you do not represent the F&W. You write way too much stuff down to be one of them. But you are like them in one respect. Not willing to be accountable, you hide. [Jessi Wrote] Why do you think the F&W do not have a written, doctrinal statement of faith, and why is that OK for you, since you lift quote after quote of Christian theologians and writers, who have all signed their names to a piece they have written? You can't ask one day for citations from writers and theologians, and when they are provided to you, turn around and claim that it only proves their superiority because they have written things down (which incidentally, you would disagree with).Who said I was talking about those particular quotes? I asked you for a name, not a bunch of stories and quotes. You lift Christian stuff and copy and paste just about every time you post. In my statement above, I don’t believe I made reference to the particular information I asked of you—nothing about the “reformed” quotes, just quotes you lift in general. Hence I believe there are still apostles today - men and women sent by God to preach the Gospel of Christ - but they do not have the same office, authority, gifts or importance as the Twelve Apostles.That's doesn't sound like F&W, either. Apostles AND prophets! As soon as you cited this verse, I knew something was missing, because I have heard this passage preached all my life - that we Gentiles, the wild branches, have been grafted into the olive tree.The prophets preached Jesus. The scratched their heads at what they themselves were saying, wondering about it. Also, the apostles preached Jesus. Then Christ is the chief cornerstone. What is missing? The rest of the house, I say. So, what was it we were arguing about? I forgot. Sorry. For the record, I do not think you hold to Reformed doctrine.OK. You seem to be suggesting that these Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Germany, Britain, and the largest Reformed Church in the United States are not Reformed! Sounds a bit cultish to me, as though only you hold the Reformed Truth and no one else can approach it.The Bible itself negates your basis for judging whether something is reformed or not reformed, right or wrong, up or down, but just the opposite. The BROAD WAY. Many go that way. Matt. 7:13-14. Because there are many churches all building on the sand . . . They SAY they are churches. Either way, we have women ministers and you do not. Our women ministers have raised a harvest of righteousness, yours remain shackled to the pews bound in archaic tradition and nonsense, which even many large Reformed congregations are turning away from.Are you their fruit in the Lord? There’s that word again. Large. Readers: As I have consistently maintained, Jessi is inconsistent with her views, has no idea regarding any theology other than her own, is not even well-schooled in Reformed theology, and must resort to all kinds of speculation in order to make her points.Thanks, GiT. It’s been a real pleasure. Sorry my low IQ slowed you down. Love you! Christ’s Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 8, 2007 5:46:12 GMT -5
Dear GiT: In an attempt to honor Jesus by studying the Holy Word in light of Him, I believe I am right; for that is what He taught (Lk 24:27). Not in my own power, but what the Helper shows me, by leading me into all Truth. Not by my own, private interpretation but . . . Scripture interprets itself. I know I could be wrong—I am a layperson. But when I compare the Holy Scriptures concerning women preachers, whether or not I like it, or whether or not I think it fits my gifts or my experience, the Word says what it says. Unless I am convinced by Holy Scripture . . . NO WOMAN PREACHER IS EXEMPLIFIED IN SCRIPTURESo, the only model we have, I believe--in your own words in an earlier post about church organization—would be wise to follow. I know many people who I believe, according to their fruits, are true Christians who believe it’s OK for women to be preachers. I would not die for all my arguments about women preachers, although I am pretty certain about it—not based on my own knowledge, but what the Bible says. I find it interesting to look into . . . why people would disobey something so clearly written. And not just one verse, either. Nowhere in the Bible is the example anywhere given that women are to preach and teach in public congregations. There were no Queens of Israel approved of God or priests or continuing prophetic offices or congregational teachers/preachers. The priests taught the people Scripture. Any layperson can compare scripture with scripture and learn from God, taught by the Holy Spirit -- who, even though He is God, is not less than Jesus or the Father, even though He is called the “Helper.” In the same way, God did not make women any less important than men, but DIFFERENT and with a different role in His family. As a helper, yet totally equal. Matt Slick's site, on WOMEN PASTORS:www.carm.org/questions/womenpastors.htmThere are more texts than one: I Tim 2:11-14 addresses the issue most clearly and directly. But this points to Genesis in mentioning Adam and Eve and WHY women are not to be teachers. Because of the order God created in everything. Seems super clear to me that Paul did not say, “some women shouldn’t teach because they’re all loud, and noisy, asking questions in church.” He said “I permit NO WOMAN.” Not one. Then, he gives the order of creation. Had nothing to do with cultural norms, or what exactly was going on in the church at the time, because he goes straight back to Genesis, allowing no other choice but to go to the beginning and compare. The woman was deceived and not the man. The Fall of Man matters. Gen 3:16-17 . . . and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee . . . 17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife . . . I agree with you about I Cor 14:33-36, that Paul cannot be saying women are not to make a sound publicly (they are allowed to pray and prophesy (11:5). But they are not allowed to teach in a congregational setting That’s very clear. Still, in both passages, Paul is trying to preserve the government of the church and its male leadership. Question: What do you call the office of the woman preacher? Minister? Elder? Teacher? Prophetess? Evangelist? Does the text anywhere say . . . Sister worker? Bishop? IS A TEACHER AN ELDER/BISHOP/OVERSEER? Then, he is to be the husband of one wife. That would be hard for a woman to do. Elder and overseer are used interchangeably in places in the NT. HE must rule over his household well. Doesn’t say any qualifications for women for eldership. I Tim 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, I Tim 3:4. By design. The man is to rule over the family, analogous to the church family and Christ as the head ( Eph 5:23), the church, his body – and no one hates his own body, so the design is not that the husband should rule as a despot over the woman 5:28-30, but to give himself, as Christ gave Himself for His Church(and shall leave his mother and father and be with his wife and the two shall be one) – analogous to Christ and his body. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God made man and woman unequal, one greater than the other, just with different roles (analogous to the Trinity). REFORMED CHURCHES ORDAINING WOMEN: Churches today, as since the early 1900’s, are becoming increasingly liberal, hence the acceptance of cultural norms, rather than honoring the Norm of Norms, the Holy Word. The visible church is becoming more like the world so it can grow and win seekers. So, it doesn’t surprise me that a Christian church that calls itself reformed is breaking from a denomination. The Presbyterian denomination in general has, since the refomers’ time, deteriorated significantly -- looking more like the world. Tendencies toward ordination of women are thus, not surprising. It’s a sign of the times. In many of today’s “reformed” churches only the title remains. the ideas behind the word are long gone and so are most reformers. We are left with a shell . . . the visible church. TODAY’S VISIBLE CHURCH: I wouldn’t want today’s visible church as the only teaching authority, since it’s becoming so much like the world. No Thanks. That’s where Satan works--In the church, tweaking truth little by little until it is error, twisting it just enough to appear right . . . even when the Bible clearly says it’s wrong. THE SECULAR CHURCH: www.carm.org/church/secularchurch.htmHere’s something that might interest you – maybe he is one of your favorite reformed apologists? Matt Slick? Peace to you, Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 10, 2007 8:31:35 GMT -5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF WOMEN MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH
Exegesis of the primary proof texts used to deny women the role of preaching
Firstly, it is important to point out a number of simple things
1. There is no teaching in the Bible that prohibits women from being recognised as spiritual leaders. 2. There are no verses in the entire Bible that place a permanent restriction on women. 3. There is a cultural aspect to consider – for instance, the Apostolic Church permitted slavery, something which all conscientious and thoughtful Christians are deeply opposed to today. 4. Not all of the practices of the Apostolic Church were intended for perpetuity: the holy kiss; the “widow’s roster”; and head-coverings are examples of discarded practices.
Jessi has cited 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as a “proof text” against having women in positions of leadership in the church. We need to honestly consider and examine this verse exegetically to see the extent of validity and application it has:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
“A woman should learn in quietness” EXEGETICAL NOTE: How much do we qualify this verse?
As I have pointed out in relation to the other verse commonly cited this instruction to women is AUTOMATICALLY qualified by all Christians (whether some of them realise it or not!).
It’s important to consider what is NOT being said here.
The verse is NOT saying that women are not allowed to sing. It is NOT saying women cannot pray publicly. And it does NOT mean women cannot prophecy. We make these qualifications because Paul in other places recognises the work of prophetesses and commands singing, praise and prayer (1 Cor. 11). Hence Paul is NOT saying women must be absolutely silent AT ALL TIMES.
Interestingly: “…Paul wants Christian women to learn is an important point, for such a practice was not generally encouraged by the Jews” (Douglas Moo, 1991).
“…and full submission…” EXEGETICAL NOTE: Full submission to whom?
Tradition says women must submit “men”. But nowhere in scripture are women commanded to submit to ALL men, or that women may NEVER have authority over men. Scripture allows women to have authority in the civil domain, as politicians, queens, rulers etc. Scripture allows women to have authority over male teenagers, and young men as teachers and mothers.
If the view held by traditionalists is correct, then it seems odd that the Bible allows women to wield authority over men in the civil sphere, in secular matters, but that within the Church they must suddenly become shrivelled and small, submitting always to the male gender.
Moreover, women should not submit if it is to incorrect teaching and unbiblical ideas. This kind of submission could hardly be described as “full”.
One must consider the possibility that something else is meant here – perhaps even within the spiritual domain – and not what the traditionalists have taught.
“I do not permit a woman to teach…” EXEGETICAL NOTE: Paul’s preface to this passage indicates it is his command and not God’s[/i].[/b]
When Paul writes “I do not permit…” he is establishing his policy for Churches within his jurisdiction. Is it therefore a permanent prohibition? But we know that Paul allows the prophetic office, and a prophet (or prophetess) is by definition a teacher and preacher. The fact that four of Philip’s virgin daughter’s prophesied suggests that women would have done considerable preaching and teaching in the church.
Hence this commandment requires qualification also.
Much more to be written There is much more that could be written here, and I have prepared a lengthy essay regarding what I believe to be the rich evidence that spiritual leadership is to be exercised by both men and women according to the will and calling of God.
But one finishes by adding that in 1st Timothy, Paul issues a large number of instructions which are not followed by the upholders of tradition in opposition to women. For instance, do the traditionalists keep a roster of widows over the age of sixty years, as Paul commanded in this Epistle? Do the traditionalists forbid women to braid their hair, and ornament it?
If not, then there is an inconsistency in their argument – they are in effect deciding that some parts of Paul’s Epistle are applicable and other parts are not – and the basis upon which they make that decision is, at best, almost entirely arbitrary, and at worst, guided by thoughtless tradition.
Questions to Jessi: 1. Can you point to any place in the Bible where women are excluded from spiritual leadership? 2. Does your church keep a widow’s roster? 3. Does your church forbid women to braid their hair and wear jewellery? 4. Can you explain why women can have civil authority, but not spiritual authority? 5. In the same letter, Paul tells slaves to submit to their masters. Is there a cultural thing here? 6. Women can prophecy but not teach – yet the results of both are the same. Contradiction? 7. Do women need to submit to ALL men? How do they choose which to submit to? 8. Is Paul’s instruction to slaves to be submissive a sign of Paul’s approval of slavery? 9. Why does Paul refer to Adam and Eve directly after this statement? 10. What about unmarried women?
|
|