Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would I be in rebellion to God's Word If.....

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Hmmm..Time for a refresher while we render emotions subservient to reason?

    https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bib...n-in-ministry/

    https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bib...try-follow-up/

    Last sentence excerpt from the second link above - "This isn't intended to say that women aren't as capable as men, but that it's important to respect the governmental order for the Church that the Lord has established."

    --------------------------
    sigpic
    Come soon Lord Jesus - Take us Safely Home

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.


    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Watcher
      Regardless of what scholars think, one reason I happen to believe that Junia was an apostle, is because Paul, who was also an apostle, says "who also were in Christ BEFORE ME". We can't ignore this last phrase in the verse. Paul is comparing them (apostles) to himself because he too is an apostle. These were apostles very early on, even before Paul was converted and became an apostle. Paul refers to himself as an apostle either directly or indirectly no less than 25 times. This was his identity. In other words, there would be no point in stating that they were in Christ before him unless he was comparing their function as apostles to his function as an apostle.

      Here's another example where Paul is comparing himself to other apostles who were apostles "before" he was. The words are exactly the same:

      Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles BEFORE ME; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. - Gal 1:17 KJV
      I'm not sure how you are equating the two sentences (as if they would be completely interchangeable), when one is referring to those "in Christ" (before Paul), whereas the other sentence is saying those who were "apostles" (before Paul). Those "in Christ" would refer to believers in general, but "apostles" would refer to specific believers who were apostles (before Paul).

      Originally posted by Watcher
      What is an apostle? The word simply means someone who is "sent". An apostle was a messenger. There's no reason that a female couldn't be an apostle. GOD, not man, determines what gifts He will give to whom. Nowhere will you find God doling out gender-based gifts.

      And GOD hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. - 1Co 12:28 KJV

      And HE gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; - Eph 4:11 KJV
      I believe that in Eph 4:11, the "gifts" being referred to (given to all "mankind / people [G444]") is these PERSONS THEMSELVES: the ones being apostles, the ones being prophets, the ones being evangelists, the ones being pastor-teachers. So in this verse, it is not saying (what we normally call) "spiritual 'gifts'" were given to all [to all believers, as we know] but that these PERSONS [being these things] ARE what was "given" by God (to and for the benefit of mankind [G444] / people). Is that making sense?

      So then, in 1 Cor 12:28, it is saying that "God hath set"... "first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers..." and then it says "only then miracles, only then gifts of healings, helps...". The first three are saying He "set" them... (in view of what I put in the first paragraph, it seems to me that the "individual giftings," if you will, starts later in this particular list. JMHO... more on that later, hopefully)

      I'll write more when I get some more time...

      Comment


      • #33
        I have purposely not addressed this post to any single person.

        Unfortunately I have not had the time lately to be more of a participant in this discussion than I would like. And it's because my time is again limited, that I will only offer at this juncture, the briefest of comments:

        ​​​​Food for thought:

        ​​​​​​​Sentence structure is something that if overlooked, can lead to much misunderstanding.

        A proper hermenuetic demands that the proper use of grammar not give way to wishful thinking. If the placement within a sentence of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, are ignored, either conciously or unconciously, we wind up with myriad misinterpretations being offered as the foundation for many an incorrect conclusion.

        IMHO, there is more than enough concious eisegesis going on in this thread already. More eisegesis than I can shake a stick at without typing for hours on end to cite specific example after specific example. The degree to which unconscious eisegesis is occurring is a little harder to discern.

        Nonetheless, as always, I encourage all to practice exegesis instead of eisegesis - and be as the Bereans and studiously avoid falling into the trap known as confirmation bias.
        ​​​​​​
        I offer these words as a reminder to us all.

        ​​​​​​​And if anyone believes the shoe fits...well, as the comic said: Here's your sign....😉




        sigpic
        Come soon Lord Jesus - Take us Safely Home

        John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

        Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.


        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Watcher
          Well, getting back to the subject of women as well as men being enabled by the Holy Spirit to speak forth the Truth of the Word of God in the church.........


          Uhmm...No. The thread topic is concerning the question of whether or not women should be permitted as the head of a church.



          Originally posted by Watcher
          Next: Confusion
          We've had enough confusion here already.

          sigpic
          Come soon Lord Jesus - Take us Safely Home

          John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

          Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.


          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Watcher
            Steve, granted there's been several topics up for discussion, but this is the one I've been responding to:


            Originally posted by ArkieTuzi View Post

            But there is also a passage, I Corinthians 14:34-35, if there is any doubt about what women should be doing during church:

            "34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

            I'll grant that this passage is about maintaining order within the church service, and preventing outbursts, but both of these passages are quite clear in their wording and context about the role of women in the church, and it is not one of leader.

            I've been following along. I've seen who's said what and to whom. And I understand your point of view, Watcher.

            And as a Moderator, I'm guilty of allowing this thread to go way far off track and into the weeds.

            In my defense, I've been restrained by time or I would have addressed many specific contextual errors via lengthy replies.

            Because my time has been limited, I was hoping that brief reminders to everyone to be as the Bereans would be heeded.

            Need I keep reminding? Context, context, context!

            This thread is a mess of bad interpretation and "understandings" and from the looks of things, it's not getting better without a course correction.

            If we don't get back on track - and stay on track - the thread will be closed and many errant and sincere, but sincerely wrong, posts will be deleted.









            sigpic
            Come soon Lord Jesus - Take us Safely Home

            John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

            Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.


            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Watcher
              I understand what you're saying, Steve. I think it's somewhat normal though that a thread tends to shift back and forth from one specific topic to other related ones. The topic of "women" in the church in general, is a huge, hotly debated issue, which accounts for the intense interest in this thread.

              The reason for the broad spectrum of related topics being brought up, is that there is more than one passage which relates to the issue at hand, 1 Corinthians 11, 14, 1 Timothy 2, etc. So, in all fairness, it's hard to focus on just one specific "thought" because they all tie into each other. This is a "theme" that runs throughout the entire Bible, just as other subjects do.


              That being said, there was a two-part question originally posed on May 1:

              1. Would I be in rebellion to GOD'S WORD if I attended a church with a female pastor leading it?


              The second and last question posed on the same day by the person who started the thread was:

              2. WHY wouldn't you? Can you EXPLAIN please?

              Obviously, there has been no further engagement in this thread by the original poster after 6 weeks have elapsed. Could it be that this question was simply designed to generate discussion about the role of women in the church today in general? You know, like throwing raw meat to a school of sharks so you can watch the feeding frenzy.


              So, their first question points to the Word of God as the source of teaching on the subject of women, the subject of pastors, and the subject of leadership. I see three topics there, not one. Again, they are all related.

              Their second question is WHY (would I be in rebellion to God's Word.....) with a request by the poster to EXPLAIN. To me, that opens the door to a complete and thorough discussion which encompasses all the related passages.


              That being said, I don't think you are guilty of anything up to this point and don't agree that the thread has gone off track into the weeds, other than when a certain poster became very antagonistic, which, I believe, you handled diplomatically and courteously.

              The fact remains that there are differing views on this subject and we can learn from one another. If people didn't care about this subject, there wouldn't be so much interest being shown. It would be a shame to force the issue and close the thread.


              In addition, I have also stated my agreement with you to being a Berean :

              "This is why we must be Bereans, Acts 17:11. This is why you see all the scripture verses in my posts which are a courtesy to the reader as an encouragement to check things out for themselves."

              So, wouldn't it be better to just let things ride as long as people are being respectful to one another? Isn't that what a "forum" is for? For......um.....a discussion? Get it? 😊
              Watcher, you have perfectly illustrated my point regarding this discussion being in the weeds.

              Discussions do wander a bit and that's the nature of discussion.

              However, the point as to why this discussion is in the weeds in the first place seems to have been missed entirely.

              Differing views on the subject have been aired.

              This discussion forum is not only a platform for fellowship, sharing and discussion, it's also a platform for edification.

              When we presuppose to instruct others, we better be careful we're getting it right.

              Concerning the matter at hand, the Bible gives us the clear view of this subject if only we would see it for what it says and not what we wished it said. Insisting the Bible says something it does not, and then defensively rationalizing with tortured interpretations in defense of errant understandings only compounds the problem.

              If, within the very first steps on a journey, we head off in the wrong direction, is it really no surprise we're in the weeds?

              In summation:
              Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the facts are the Bible is clear on the form, purpose and function of a governmental hierarchy in a church. This structural, hierarchical governmental point has been clearly articulated and is plainly supported by Scripture.

              The Bible is clear that women play a vital role in the church hierarchy: women may teach, instruct and preach, but they are not to be bestowed the authority to lead as the head of a church.





              sigpic
              Come soon Lord Jesus - Take us Safely Home

              John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

              Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.


              Comment

              Working...
              X