|
Post by Jessi on Aug 13, 2007 20:53:30 GMT -5
FEMALE PREACHERS:
GIT: There is no teaching in the Bible that prohibits women from being recognised as spiritual leaders.
It depends on leaders of whom . . . and under what circumstances. They are not permitted to lead men spiritually in a congregational setting (I Tim 2:12) by teaching them or preaching to them. God ordered mankind as he did the universe, beginning in Gen 2:18. Woman's role as helper to her husband in no way curtails her spiritual leadership in the church. Biblical equality is not the same as our democratic/American idea of equality. Man is the one who treated women badly in the Bible. Not God. Marriage represents God and His Bride.
Man's role is the head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church (Eph 5:23). The Bible says women should teach other women (Titus 2:4) and be childbearers and keepers of the home (Eph 5:14) – for younger women.
Titus 2:3+ seems pretty clear on what the women are supposed to be doing for the church and for their husbands:
3Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands,(I) that the word of God may not be reviled.
GiT: There are no verses in the entire Bible that place a permanent restriction on women.
Gen 3:16, I Tim 2:12 Paul never took back I Tim 2:12 and God never took back Gen 3:16, so they can still be compared today. GiT: 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.
The Bible does not speak against the institution itself, but abuses of it – Ex 21:16, 26, 27, Lev 25:10, Deut 23:15, 16.
Solomon, full of all wisdom, great king, multiplied horses and gold and silver to himself. That was a sin (Deut 17:17). Doesn’t mean God condoned it. The OT is but a picture of us. The institution of slavery is not something God ordained, but that man, with his black, sinful heart (Jer 17:9) picked up all on his own, just like he did with multiple wives and falling into idolatry.
GiT: 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.
OK. I think most theologians and historians would say that the head covering business was cultural—as all of the above examples seem to be--but I know Christians who still practice the holy kiss, and we at FBC take care of our widows and their children, financially and otherwise, as needed.
But, all the same, culture is not the standard for truth.
I Cor 14:11:
GiT: It’s important to consider what is NOT being said here.
Why should we study words that are not there?
Tradition says women must submit “men”.
Not tradition -- The Bible says God made the woman as the helper for the man because it was not good for man to be alone (Gen 2:18). But, she sinned first and deceived him. Now, the man rules over her. No tradition here, but God’s inerrant word, from the beginning.
But nowhere in scripture are women commanded to submit to ALL men, or that women may NEVER have authority over men.
Here are these sudden qualifiers, which do seem to make some difference. ALL and NEVER. No one is arguing for ALL or NEVER -- but teaching in a congregational setting.
The Bible says, if I study the lives of the leaders in my church (and this would include women) and I observe that they bear Christ’s fruit and that they are godly, upright people (Heb 13:7), beyond reproach, I must submit to them—for men AND women, the qualification is, they must prove to be godly by their example. The women in my church instruct me--sometimes more than I prefer--they just don’t preach to me during the worship service in church. That’s for men.
I Tim 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 respectively, list Overseer, deacon, and elder, each one as being the “husband of but one wife”, among other qualifications, such as “A MAN whose children believe . . .” (Titus 1:6). So, an elder definitely has to be the husband of one wife, whether it’s a man or a woman.
What are the qualifications for women preachers, since they are not as carefully listed in the Bible? It does not say pastor here, but pastor is mentioned elsewhere (Eph 4:11).
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.
Let’s discuss the handful of women who held "leadership" roles amongst God’s people, Israel. Which one would you like to start with?
I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH:
Paul’s preface to this passage indicates it is his command and not God’s. When Paul writes “I do not permit…” he is establishing his policy for Churches within his jurisdiction.
This idea of "churches within his jurisdiction" seems to be conjecture. What prefaces his statement seems significantly less important in light of what comes after the word "FOR", meaning "BECAUSE." The real reason why women are not to teach or have authority over a man.
GiT: But we know that Paul allows the prophetic office, and a prophet (or prophetess) is by definition a teacher and preacher.
Whose definition? Why did Paul separate them if they could be used interchangeably? Historically, a prophet and a teacher/preacher were NOT the same offices.
A prophet typically went to the people and told them (foretold, or forth-told) the Word of the LORD. No example of a woman teacher/preacher exists in the Bible.
The fact that four of Philip’s virgin daughter’s prophesied suggests that women would have done considerable preaching and teaching in the church.
How does the simple fact that they prophesied prove that they did "considerable teaching and preaching"? Do we know how many times they prophesied? What if they only did it once? Right after that, here comes Agabus, a prophet, showing what would happen to Paul, giving us an example of prophecy in the form of FORETELLING. That's not preaching and teaching Holy Scripture. Also, since Paul the Apostle was there, I'm sure he could have taught and preached.
I am not arguing that women cannot exercise spiritual leadership in the church. In fact, their leadership is necessary for church growth. My argument is very focused on the forbidding of women to preach and teach a mixed crowd of men and women in a congregational setting/worhip service within the confines of a church (not a building, but a body of Christians gathered together to worship).
Christ's Forever,
Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 13, 2007 21:37:45 GMT -5
Questions to Jessi:
GiT: Can you point to any place in the Bible where women are excluded from spiritual leadership?
* There were no legitimate women rulers/queens in either Israel or Judah—and I could find no mention of women priests in the Bible.
* Jesus chose his 12 male disciples who would sit on the 12 thrones of Israel (Lk 6:13). No women.
But – Exclusion of women from spiritual leadership is not my argument. I am convinced by Scripture that women have a high calling in God's Kingdom--just a different role than men.
GiT: Does your church keep a widow’s roster?
Yes. We support them financially as needed and care for them and their children in many (spiritual and physical) ways.
GiT: Does your church forbid women to braid their hair and wear jewellery?
No—and neither does the Bible.
Nothing is forbidden in I Pet 3:3, just the same as Paul is saying when he says, “I do not permit.” Peter says, “Let it not be –OUTWARD ADORNING . . . (gives a description of outward adornment, like braids, gold, silve) . . . but let it be the HIDDEN MAN OF THE HEART. It’s attitude they mean, not clothes or physical adornment.
Jewelry is definitely not forbidden in the Holy Word -- it's the reason why she wears it that matters.
Nothing wrong with dressing up your wife. God did. She turned out to be a wh0re, though, even so. In Ezekiel 16, God uses much imagery of fine dress to describe His erring adulterous Israel. He dresses his bride in embroidered cloth, fine linen, silk, and fine leather shoes. He adorned her with ornaments and bracelets and chains of gold and silver on her neck and wrists. He even put a ring in her nose and earrings in her ears and a crown on her head.
GiT: Can you explain why women can have civil authority, but not spiritual authority?
In order for me to obey I Tim 2:12, though, I don’t need to be concerned with any of that. Job, for instance, had no clue why he was suffering, but he was sure God was doing it. He said, “Though he slay me, yet I will trust in Him” (Job 13:15).
Because Biblical people or people today do certain things, doesn’t mean the church should copy it or that it is sanctioned by God. MANY CHURCHES TODAY ARE pretty much EXACTLY LIKE THE WORLD.
GiT: In the same letter, Paul tells slaves to submit to their masters. Is there a cultural thing here?
No, it’s a God thing (Titus 3:1, Eph 6:5, I Tim 6:1, I Pet 2:18 and other verse/passages), commanded by God. Because we know that while God may not have sanctioned slavery, He allowed it for some Sovereign purpose. If He can allow it, certainly He could have stopped it. But he didn't. Therefore, it was ordained by God.
GiT: Women can prophecy but not teach – yet the results of both are the same. Contradiction?
How do you know what are the results and if they are the same? For instance, what was the result of Phil's four virgin daughters prophesying? Do we know? Do we have an example of a woman teaching and preaching in public in the church in the NT with which we can compare the results of these two incidents? What was the question? I forgot.
GiT: Do women need to submit to ALL men?
No.
GiT: How do they choose which to submit to?
Their husbands – and godly men in the church family who have rule over them (Heb 13:7).
GiT: Is Paul’s instruction to slaves to be submissive a sign of Paul’s approval of slavery?
No—but of the command to obey those who have rule over us (Rom 13:1-7), no matter what, because the situation we are in is brought about by the sovereign hand of God Almighty and the powers that be are ordained of God.
We are to be content where we are (Phil 4:12). If one is in a certain circumstance at any given time, regardless of whether or not it is fair, it is God who has put him there (Prv 16:9). His letter to Philemon about his slave, Onesimus, exemplifies that he doesn’t approve of slavery, but wants to keep the peace. He is sending him back to his master, beseeching him to have mercy and put all debt he owes to his own charge.
The bottom line in the Holy Word is that Obedience seem more important than what is fair. God is fair. God is just. If we trust Him, we will get our reward in Christ.
GiT: Why does Paul refer to Adam and Eve directly after this statement?
To show the order of the universe, as God has ordered it, not man. God limits a woman’s authority in the church as he does in the family. Her desire will be for her husband (always trying to usurp his authority) – Since the fall of man, satan has been trying to reverse the roles of God’s ordered universe.
Just as satan set about to deceive the wife of the first Adam, so does he try to deceive the church, TO REVERSE THE ROLES and go after the SECOND ADAM’S WIFE, THE CHURCH, blurring the lines between right and wrong.
There are pictures and parallels to the Christ of God in both testaments that prove the parallels between the first and the last Adam -- and the symbolism in the institution of marriage--which is why all of it was written, so that we could be certain and believe (Jn 20:31).
Rib of Adam: Gen 2:21-22 ------------- John 19:34 Flesh of my flesh: Gen 2:23 ----------- Eph 5:30 1st Adam’s Bride: Gen 3:1-7 ---------- Last Adam’s bride – Jn 3:29, Rev 21:2,9, 22:17.
It all points to Christ, the Bridegroom, which is why Paul points back to Genesis and Eve--The Fall of Man made all the difference. That's why we need a Saviour, a husband, a bridegroom who knows how to treat His Bride. God never treated His bride the way man treats his in the Bible. That's why we need a Savior.
GiT: What about unmarried women?
What about them?
Christ's Forever,
Jessi
|
|
savedbyblood
Junior Member
Eventually we'll figure it all out!
Posts: 57
|
Post by savedbyblood on Aug 14, 2007 0:11:26 GMT -5
Reply to post #1 Some quotes from GIT with comments from SBB:I just recently found your post and I tend to get a little long-winded but please bear with me. I think the long-winded part comes from offering for the Work when I was 19 years old. The Lord led me on a different path and I am so happy for that. I love the Truth and the Workers but sometimes we do not see the same message from the same words. We are all human and all capable of making mistakes in judgment as well as in interpretation. NAMES:Despite Brad's oft-repeated and monotonous claims that the Way and Truth is Jesus (which we in the fellowship agree with), the Church does not identify itself with Christ, or confuse the power of the Lord for itself. Yet, at the very beginning, the Church was often referred to as "The Way". We can therefore lay claim to such names because this is what the Church in the New Testament was called, and it is foolishness to either deny this, or make it into a great issue: GIT, Bravo!Paul persecuted followers of "this Way": I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison (Acts 22:4) (Note: Capitalisation in original) (KJV - 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.)The Way was considered a sect among the Jews: However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14) (Note: Here the Way refers to the Church or the corpus of Christian teachings, and not to Christ himself. The Jews were calling The Way a sect, and one cannot use this terminology in reference to a person, only a group.) (KJV - 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets)The American Heritage DictionaryHeresy - a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member. b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.Sect - a. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. b. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination. c. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.The KJV uses the word Heresy in this verse. I believe it fits better because of the huge difference in belief between the Jews and Christians so it would be simple to label Christians as Heretics! Some of the thoughts of the strong 2by2's would be labeled as heresy by some of the Workers and even some of the 2by2 Saints if we were to ever speak to them of our personal experience or beliefs. I know this because I have...Governor Felix was familiar with the Way: Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. "When Lysias the commander comes," he said, "I will decide your case." (Acts 24:22) (Note: Again "Way" here refers to the church. It would be utter foolishness to construe this passage as saying that Felix was well-acquainted with Christ. His greed and lack of moral scruples suggest this was far from the case.) (KJV - 24:22 And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.) GIT - This is true that Felix was not well acquainted with the Way. His chance was lost when he left Paul bound. He put politics before his soul.The existence of the Way prompted disturbances: About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. (Acts 19:23) (Note: Another reference to the Church and Christian teaching. There could not be a great disturbance about Jesus the Way because by this time he had already ascended into Heaven.) (KJV - 19:23 And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.Believers "belonged to the Way": ...and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:2) (KJV 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.)GIT, You have such Faith and such a deep understanding of the Truth. Sometimes those of us in the Way look at the Word with an eye toward to practical living that the Workers have been shielded from from since they entered the Work and therefore often cannot see the practical implications of Jesus' teachings to human lives and family's. In my part of the country it is deeply frowned upon to read another translation other than the "approved" King James Version," yet I have heard visiting Workers at convention mention other English translations as well as translations in the languages from the fields in which they Labor. Even the way in which the Workers deal with the Saints differ around the world.
An early example of the Bible controversy was shortly after I professed so many years ago. A Worker wanted to have a look at my Bible and noted the awful "Red Letters" of Christ and made no effort in holding his tongue in telling me how "bad" it was to rely on this kind of Bible. My mother had handed that Bible down to me a few years earlier and I could see that she was hurt also. She bought me a new one shortly thereafter but thankfully it was a "Red Letter" edition!Peace in Him, SBB
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 14, 2007 6:16:06 GMT -5
True to form Jessi you are unable to address the points raised, and you have even apparently discarded even the the pretense of maintaining a topical discussion. Indeed, your post is brimming with evasive answers and sidestepping of the issues in view, never focussing on the actual matter of my case-line. For, hard as it is to believe, Jessi, the existence of a response to someone else's post does not mean that response is credible.
Let's look at what you offer us today:
The term, "Church Fathers” does not refer to anyone born in the 1800s who later joined a heretical cult who didn’t believe that Jesus was God. A church started in the 1800s who won’t write anything down about their beliefs so they could be held accountable . . . is simply not a church, but a heretical cult.
Firstly, let us establish the context of our discussion. I affectionately referred to Sam Jones as "a father in the church". Note, I did not call him "my father" in the church, or "the father" of the church. My reference was to him as "a father". In response to this you cited Christ's teaching regarding not calling any man our father on the earth, "for one is your Father, in heaven".
Overlooking for the moment the absolute removal of context from your citation, I replied to you that some clarification of your point in raising the verse was necessary, given that the Apostle Paul calls himself Timothy's father in the faith, and makes numerous references to the patriarchs of Israel as "father". I provided you with scripture demonstrating the factual nature of my assertions - I was not merely blowing a concept in your direction without any textual evidence. It seemed odd to me that Paul should apparently contradict Christ's teachings in this regard, UNLESS we accept that Christ was using a vivid hyperbole and the kernal of the teaching was not the surface-level interpretation that was your clear intent.
I also pointed out that if we are not allowed to refer to ANYONE of the Faith as a father, then you make yourself a hypocrite given your reference to "Church Fathers" - the men whose teachings are not a unified corpus of writing, who contradict each other on numerous points, and who have been a well-spring for the Roman Catholic Church to drink from in order for them to develop all manner of false doctrine.
What is your response to all of this? Is it some clarification? Do you explain or expound what you intended by your scriptural citation? Or (God forbid!) even acknowledge a mistake on your part in a misreading of this scripture? The answer is a resounding "no".
You run completely off the rails of discussion, and reply petulently to the effect of: "Well, the term "Church Fathers" don't refer to YOUR heretical cult, so there!" (Poke tongue out at this juncture for full visual effect). My first response to reading this was: "What the heck is she going on about? Where did that come from?" I hate to say this, but Jessi's statement here is like a white rabbit from a magician's hat; a puzzling object that has seemingly popped out of nowhere. Given that your writing here is not even logically connected to the discussion at hand, I abandon all hope of being able to follow your reasoning.
(By the way, I hope any readers who have waded through this ocean of text to this point will appreciate what I am saying here, and perhaps even understand my frustration with Jessi's debating methodology.)
But I am NOT going to let you get away with this Jessi. Not this time. I repeat my original point as a question: "What is the difference to my reference to Sam Jones as 'a father in the church' and your reference to Church Fathers"? Are you not equally breaking scripture by referring to someone on earth as a father in the Faith?
The answer to both of these questions - at least, if you are honest Jessi (and I have no confidence in that at all, by the way) - is that there is no functional difference between your statement and mine. The meaning is the same; the intention is the same; and both are equally contrary to your interpretation of Christ's commandment regarding fathers on earth.
The one thing that made me more than a little sick to my stomach was the pictures of Sam Jones under the title of "The Psalmist of Israel". Considering that Christians are taught that David was a type of Christ . . . to compare SJ to David . . . really is sickening. But that's exactly what F&W do. Prideful beyond belief. Psalmist of Israel . . . Wow.
Let's again reach for that bottle of weird stuff on the shelf called "context". Need I remind you Jessi that Reformed Protestants have been calling John Wyclif "The Morning Star of the Reformation" for hundreds of years now. In fact, when I searched for those precise words on the internet, I found more than 2,000 references.
The "Morning Star", of course, is a title given to Christ. Does that mean that Reformed Protestants are equating the contribution of John Wyclif to Christ? Of course not! Even you, Jessi, would not make an utterly ridiculous and stupid error like that; namely, the fallacy that two people, each ascribed two similiar titles, indicates an equality of form, function and importance.
When Sam Jones is called the "Psalmist of Israel" no one is saying he shares equality of form, function and importance with David. No one is mistaking Sam Jones for David the prophet and king - in fact, the only person confused on this issue, is you, Jessi. Sam recieves the "nickname" because he, like King David (although David was not the only "psalmist of Israel"), wrote heaps of hymns. That is the extent of similarity.
You need to be careful, Jessi. Your viscerial, reactionary and totally irrational hatred for the Church and friends is showing. In fact, this kind of rhetoric is not even reactionary, for even those who spend a lifetime reacting to others have a logic for their actions. No, this kind of statement goes beyond that. The only adjective I can find is "bizarre".
Jesus is condemning pride and pretense, not titles. Paul uses the word in reference to himself as the Corinthian’s father (I Cor 4:15). Doesn’t forbid respect (I Thess 5:11, 12:1, Tim 5:1) . . .
Oh, I see! Right. So when I call Sam Jones "a father in the church" I MUST be using it in a prideful and pretentious way, yes? Because I am in the Church - no, scratch that, in the "cult" - and we are all prideful heretics, completely full of ourselves. It is thus impossible for me to be using the term in precisely the same manner that Paul used the term for the patriarchs - respectfully and reverently.
The statements above are simply irrational. Teaching a course on racism in recent weeks has made me realise afresh the irrationality of blind hatred, whether it is on racial, sexual, national, cultural or religious terms. There is no reasoning with someone consumed by hatred informed by ideology - especially a religious ideology (my students were pretty impressed with my Hitler impression in class this morning, and they were consequently forced to acknowledge the power of negation).
But Christ forbids the use of “father” as a spiritual title . . . Or “in an ostentatious sense that accords undue spiritual authority to a human being, as if he were the source of truth rather than God”(John MacArthur, Study Bible, pg 1436). [/b][/color]
Yet this assertion overlooks the fact that I was not giving Sam Jones a "spiritual title". I was calling him "a father in the church" - this hardly constitutes the bestowal of rank. In fact, to be absolutely precise, I was using the term in the Pauline sense. The specific verse I had in mind was: "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."
Note well Paul's elaboration - "I become your father through the gospel" - which he could truthfully say since he was the minister who converted them and laid the foundation of the Church at Corinth, precisely as Sam Jones is a father through the gospel to the Church here in Australia.
So, explain to me Jessi, how I have broken the scripture? I look forward to reading an elaborate justification of why I am a scripture-breaker, whilst Paul is not, even though both I and the Apostle have used the word "father" in the same sense.
MacArthur’s quote seems to resemble the way you uphold SJ, and also the way F&W elevate the workers.
In the end this is what it boils down to: "a resemblance". Again, I ask Jessi to explain where the resemblance actually lies. MacArthur speaks about spiritual titles. I am speaking of a spiritual description. Where is the connection?
ADDENDUM: Looking up John MacArthur, whose study Bible Jessi thinks sufficiently highly of to cite on the internet, proved to be interesting reading. (By the way, my study Bible is written by a panel of scholars, and edited by another panel. I refuse to purchase Study Bibles that have been written by one person, because 1. there is no peer review process, 2. it is a quick trip to being emmeshed in that individual's spiritual perceptions, whether they be right or wrong, and 3. I believe it is a misnomer - it is not a Study Bible, it is an individual's commentary.)
Get a load of this quote from the Wikipedia article:
His book The Gospel According to Jesus... caused controversy in the evangelical church by arguing for lordship salvation, which teaches that "you must receive Jesus Christ for who He is: both Lord and Savior (II Peter 2:20)"
Apparently this book brought a great deal of controvesy in its wake because many in the evangelical community denounced MacArthur's position as teaching work's based righteousness rather than salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. MacArthur's Church was also the first evangelical Church in the United States to be sued and embroiled for more than seven years in a legal issue over a young man who committed suicide after recieving "bible counselling" from MacArthur and friends. And this is the guy that Jessi studies!
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 14, 2007 6:57:58 GMT -5
There were no legitimate women rulers/queens in either Israel or Judah—and I could find no mention of women priests in the Bible.
Then we should conclude that there can be no legitimate women rulers or Queens these days. The Queen of Australia - Elizabeth II - in an un-Christian imposter who has angered the LORD by beng born into the royal family! She should abdicate in favour of her son, the repulsive Prince of Wales.
It is unsurprising that there is no mention of women priests, given that the Law allowed for only male priests. But Christ, of course, was the end of the Law, and as the Apostle Peter explains, there is now a priesthood of all believers.
Jesus chose his 12 male disciples who would sit on the 12 thrones of Israel (Lk 6:13). No women.
He did not choose Gentiles either. Does this mean that Gentiles cannot minister, and that only Jewish people by birth are accepted preachers of God? Of course it does not. This example is therefore a nonsense in regards to the discussion (I've heard this one before, usually from Roman Catholics interestingly).
But – Exclusion of women from spiritual leadership is not my argument. I am convinced by Scripture that women have a high calling in God's Kingdom--just a different role than men.
And I am convinced of the opposite. Dogmatically stating your position without argument is not a case, Jessi.
GiT: Does your church forbid women to braid their hair and wear jewellery? No—and neither does the Bible.
You must have an interesting Bible. The verse before the one you cite to keep women from preaching, the Apostle writes:
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
Women are clearly not meant to have braided hair or other ornamentation. Paul is unequivocal on this issue: women need to be modest and it is not modest to have these kinds of external ornamentation - "not with" those things.
It’s attitude they mean, not clothes or physical adornment.
This interpretation is no more found in the text than the view that women are expressly and explicitly barred from preaching. It seems pretty unequivocal to me; John Calvin agreed with me (jewels, powders and fancy dresses were forbidden in Calvin's Geneva).
Nothing wrong with dressing up your wife. God did. She turned out to be a wh0re, though, even so. In Ezekiel 16, God uses much imagery of fine dress to describe His erring adulterous Israel. He dresses his bride in embroidered cloth, fine linen, silk, and fine leather shoes. He adorned her with ornaments and bracelets and chains of gold and silver on her neck and wrists. He even put a ring in her nose and earrings in her ears and a crown on her head.
Two objections: Old Testament, and this was a parable. Do you take everything in all of Christ's parables literally? Does your pastor chuck seeds at you, or recommeds you don't bury your Bible in a napkin until the Lord returns from the distant nation he's travelled to? No he does not, because they are not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively with spiritual application. The same is true for parables found in the Old Testament.
In order for me to obey I Tim 2:12, though, I don’t need to be concerned with any of that. Job, for instance, had no clue why he was suffering, but he was sure God was doing it. He said, “Though he slay me, yet I will trust in Him” (Job 13:15).
Why couldn't you be halfway honest and forthright and simply answer, "I don't know"? I would have accepted that with a heap more respect than the evasion demonstrated above.
Because Biblical people or people today do certain things, doesn’t mean the church should copy it or that it is sanctioned by God. MANY CHURCHES TODAY ARE pretty much EXACTLY LIKE THE WORLD.
Not mine.
Because we know that while God may not have sanctioned slavery, He allowed it for some Sovereign purpose. If He can allow it, certainly He could have stopped it. But he didn't. Therefore, it was ordained by God.
Predestination works as a Christian doctrine, not as an answer to every argument. What the above explanation amounts to is that slavery was human fate, and that this evil was permitted by God, which is itself an evil. This is why I believe in a "weak predestination" because the strongest argument against this doctrine, in my view, is that by necessity God becomes the source of evil in the world. I will not accept that.
By the way, how do you know that God did not sanction slavery? There are parables in both the Old and New Testament that include slaves, and there is an apparent acceptance of the institution throughout the Bible. Perhaps, however, like me you recognise that slavery is inconsistent with the equality and dignity that God's act of creation bestows upon a man - just as it is inconsistent to say that women are lesser beings.
John Calvin struggled with this. One one hand he recognised women HAD to be equal to men, or otherwise they could not be fairly judged by God, yet on the other hand he was a male supremacist and read this into his theology.
Mary Potter accounted for Calvin's apparent inconsistencies by forming a "two distinct perspectives" argument. Calvin held two distinct perspectives, cogito dei and cogito hominis (knowledge of God and humankind). According to the relative perspective of humankind, women are relatively subordinate. But, according to the absolute perspective of God, women are absolutely equal. Potter suggested that Calvin's two distinct perspectives resulted in a clearer affirmation of equality on the one hand, but it also led to a more severe rationale for his thoughts on inequality. (Carrigan Ph.D., 1999)
What was the question? I forgot.
I'm not surprised.
His letter to Philemon about his slave, Onesimus, exemplifies that he doesn’t approve of slavery, but wants to keep the peace. He is sending him back to his master, beseeching him to have mercy and put all debt he owes to his own charge.
I'm sorry. I must have missed Paul's condemnation of slavery the last time I read through Philemon. Where did he demonstrate that he "doesn't approve of slavery"?
The bottom line in the Holy Word is that Obedience seem more important than what is fair. God is fair. God is just. If we trust Him, we will get our reward in Christ.
God is fair even when he is unfair, you mean?
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Aug 14, 2007 7:35:15 GMT -5
Hello GIT:
I'm not meaning to sidetrack the discussion; however, in regards to women's appearance: Propriety to me means what is proper to society at the time - in other words, what is modest to society at the time. Modesty, to me, would be not to either extreme - neither too severe in appearance or the other end of the spectrum - dressing provocatively so that ones witness of Jesus is harmed.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 16, 2007 10:24:37 GMT -5
True to form Jessi you are unable to address the points raised, and you have even apparently discarded even the the pretense of maintaining a topical discussion. Indeed, your post is brimming with evasive answers and sidestepping of the issues in view, never focussing on the actual matter of my case-line. For, hard as it is to believe, Jessi, the existence of a response to someone else's post does not mean that response is credible.Let's look at what you offer us today:The term, "Church Fathers” does not refer to anyone born in the 1800s who later joined a heretical cult who didn’t believe that Jesus was God. A church started in the 1800s who won’t write anything down about their beliefs so they could be held accountable . . . is simply not a church, but a heretical cult. Firstly, let us establish the context of our discussion. I affectionately referred to Sam Jones as "a father in the church". Note, I did not call him "my father" in the church, or "the father" of the church. My reference was to him as "a father". In response to this you cited Christ's teaching regarding not calling any man our father on the earth, "for one is your Father, in heaven".
Overlooking for the moment the absolute removal of context from your citation, I replied to you that some clarification of your point in raising the verse was necessary, given that the Apostle Paul calls himself Timothy's father in the faith, and makes numerous references to the patriarchs of Israel as "father". I provided you with scripture demonstrating the factual nature of my assertions - I was not merely blowing a concept in your direction without any textual evidence. It seemed odd to me that Paul should apparently contradict Christ's teachings in this regard, UNLESS we accept that Christ was using a vivid hyperbole and the kernal of the teaching was not the surface-level interpretation that was your clear intent.
I also pointed out that if we are not allowed to refer to ANYONE of the Faith as a father, then you make yourself a hypocrite given your reference to "Church Fathers" - the men whose teachings are not a unified corpus of writing, who contradict each other on numerous points, and who have been a well-spring for the Roman Catholic Church to drink from in order for them to develop all manner of false doctrine.
What is your response to all of this? Is it some clarification? Do you explain or expound what you intended by your scriptural citation? Or (God forbid!) even acknowledge a mistake on your part in a misreading of this scripture? The answer is a resounding "no".
You run completely off the rails of discussion, and reply petulently to the effect of: "Well, the term "Church Fathers" don't refer to YOUR heretical cult, so there!" (Poke tongue out at this juncture for full visual effect). My first response to reading this was: "What the heck is she going on about? Where did that come from?" I hate to say this, but Jessi's statement here is like a white rabbit from a magician's hat; a puzzling object that has seemingly popped out of nowhere. Given that your writing here is not even logically connected to the discussion at hand, I abandon all hope of being able to follow your reasoning.
(By the way, I hope any readers who have waded through this ocean of text to this point will appreciate what I am saying here, and perhaps even understand my frustration with Jessi's debating methodology.)
But I am NOT going to let you get away with this Jessi. Not this time. I repeat my original point as a question: "What is the difference to my reference to Sam Jones as 'a father in the church' and your reference to Church Fathers"? Are you not equally breaking scripture by referring to someone on earth as a father in the Faith?
The answer to both of these questions - at least, if you are honest Jessi (and I have no confidence in that at all, by the way) - is that there is no functional difference between your statement and mine. The meaning is the same; the intention is the same; and both are equally contrary to your interpretation of Christ's commandment regarding fathers on earth.The one thing that made me more than a little sick to my stomach was the pictures of Sam Jones under the title of "The Psalmist of Israel". Considering that Christians are taught that David was a type of Christ . . . to compare SJ to David . . . really is sickening. But that's exactly what F&W do. Prideful beyond belief. Psalmist of Israel . . . Wow.Let's again reach for that bottle of weird stuff on the shelf called "context". Need I remind you Jessi that Reformed Protestants have been calling John Wyclif "The Morning Star of the Reformation" for hundreds of years now. In fact, when I searched for those precise words on the internet, I found more than 2,000 references.The "Morning Star", of course, is a title given to Christ. Does that mean that Reformed Protestants are equating the contribution of John Wyclif to Christ? Of course not! Even you, Jessi, would not make an utterly ridiculous and stupid error like that; namely, the fallacy that two people, each ascribed two similiar titles, indicates an equality of form, function and importance.When Sam Jones is called the "Psalmist of Israel" no one is saying he shares equality of form, function and importance with David. No one is mistaking Sam Jones for David the prophet and king - in fact, the only person confused on this issue, is you, Jessi. Sam recieves the "nickname" because he, like King David (although David was not the only "psalmist of Israel"), wrote heaps of hymns. That is the extent of similarity.You need to be careful, Jessi. Your viscerial, reactionary and totally irrational hatred for the Church and friends is showing. In fact, this kind of rhetoric is not even reactionary, for even those who spend a lifetime reacting to others have a logic for their actions. No, this kind of statement goes beyond that. The only adjective I can find is "bizarre".Jesus is condemning pride and pretense, not titles. Paul uses the word in reference to himself as the Corinthian’s father (I Cor 4:15). Doesn’t forbid respect (I Thess 5:11, 12:1, Tim 5:1) . . . Oh, I see! Right. So when I call Sam Jones "a father in the church" I MUST be using it in a prideful and pretentious way, yes? Because I am in the Church - no, scratch that, in the "cult" - and we are all prideful heretics, completely full of ourselves. It is thus impossible for me to be using the term in precisely the same manner that Paul used the term for the patriarchs - respectfully and reverently.The statements above are simply irrational. Teaching a course on racism in recent weeks has made me realise afresh the irrationality of blind hatred, whether it is on racial, sexual, national, cultural or religious terms. There is no reasoning with someone consumed by hatred informed by ideology - especially a religious ideology (my students were pretty impressed with my Hitler impression in class this morning, and they were consequently forced to acknowledge the power of negation).But Christ forbids the use of “father” as a spiritual title . . . Or “in an ostentatious sense that accords undue spiritual authority to a human being, as if he were the source of truth rather than God”(John MacArthur, Study Bible, pg 1436). [/b][/color] Yet this assertion overlooks the fact that I was not giving Sam Jones a "spiritual title". I was calling him "a father in the church" - this hardly constitutes the bestowal of rank. In fact, to be absolutely precise, I was using the term in the Pauline sense. The specific verse I had in mind was: "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." Note well Paul's elaboration - "I become your father through the gospel" - which he could truthfully say since he was the minister who converted them and laid the foundation of the Church at Corinth, precisely as Sam Jones is a father through the gospel to the Church here in Australia.So, explain to me Jessi, how I have broken the scripture? I look forward to reading an elaborate justification of why I am a scripture-breaker, whilst Paul is not, even though both I and the Apostle have used the word "father" in the same sense.MacArthur’s quote seems to resemble the way you uphold SJ, and also the way F&W elevate the workers.In the end this is what it boils down to: "a resemblance". Again, I ask Jessi to explain where the resemblance actually lies. MacArthur speaks about spiritual titles. I am speaking of a spiritual description. Where is the connection?ADDENDUM: Looking up John MacArthur, whose study Bible Jessi thinks sufficiently highly of to cite on the internet, proved to be interesting reading. (By the way, my study Bible is written by a panel of scholars, and edited by another panel. I refuse to purchase Study Bibles that have been written by one person, because 1. there is no peer review process, 2. it is a quick trip to being emmeshed in that individual's spiritual perceptions, whether they be right or wrong, and 3. I believe it is a misnomer - it is not a Study Bible, it is an individual's commentary.)Get a load of this quote from the Wikipedia article:His book The Gospel According to Jesus... caused controversy in the evangelical church by arguing for lordship salvation, which teaches that "you must receive Jesus Christ for who He is: both Lord and Savior (II Peter 2:20)"Apparently this book brought a great deal of controvesy in its wake because many in the evangelical community denounced MacArthur's position as teaching work's based righteousness rather than salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. MacArthur's Church was also the first evangelical Church in the United States to be sued and embroiled for more than seven years in a legal issue over a young man who committed suicide after recieving "bible counselling" from MacArthur and friends. And this is the guy that Jessi studies![/quote] I am withdrawing from this discussion (most of which you have beaten to death, and dragged from another thread), on the grounds that you have presented nothing new, just more personal attacks on those people in reformed circles who you claim to agree with . . but only when it's convenient for you. One can say he is reformed and not be reformed, same as one can say he is a Christian and not be one. Take care, GiT - May the Lord bless you when He opens your heart to the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus and causes you to turn from the "other gospel" of the F&W, which is no gospel at all. We will see the change in you when you begin to defend the Truth about Jesus and not your own reputation and your own name. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by You go girl on Aug 16, 2007 10:36:29 GMT -5
Jessi: well said!
|
|
|
Post by takes 1 2 know 1 on Aug 16, 2007 17:01:48 GMT -5
True to form Jessi you are unable to address the points raised, and you have even apparently discarded even the the pretense of maintaining a topical discussion. Indeed, your post is brimming with evasive answers and sidestepping of the issues in view, never focussing on the actual matter of my case-line. For, hard as it is to believe, Jessi, the existence of a response to someone else's post does not mean that response is credible.
No one is more qualified to say this than GIT, since IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 16, 2007 18:01:08 GMT -5
Christ's Forever,
Writing it over and over "don't make it so" - as you and I would both acknowledge. The difference is, I actually think you ARE a Christian and ARE saved, whereas you seem to think all of us Friends are damned and are on an express train to the hot place. Obviously I disagree with this perspective.
I wish we could form a better relationship. Would you be willing to forgive and move on?
Peace.
|
|