The New Forum?????? [Archive]

Jim47

16th May 2005, 09:49 PM

SPALATIN

17th May 2005, 09:25 AM

I know there are very few of us that are happy with the new rule, myself included. It pretty much takes away the motivation to come here if we can't speak God's Word in truth.

I have given our my e-mail address here to quite a few tonight, if I missed you it wasn't intentional, just send me a PM. I have no enemies and am happy to share friendship with anyone. I'm a greatly disappointed like everyone else and need to clear my head.

What I am not willing to do is to let these liberal rules run my life. At the same time I respect the founder of this forum and choose not to violate the rules.

Catch22

Let me know if this changes. :wave:

To say that everyone is angry with the new rule is an understatement. I put my thoughts on the original rule change thread this morning. I may go back and add some thoughts to it, but I think this is my last day here. Tertimquid has put some links to new Lutheran forum sites that we might be interested in visiting.

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 09:29 AM

To say that everyone is angry with the new rule is an understatement.

No it isn't. I like it. I like the idea of being able to voice an opinion and not be drawn and qaurtered. :)

Besides, this may provide an opportunity for us to seek what unites, rather than to seek what divides us and therefore cause further disunity in Christ, which of course violates the prayer of Christ as recorded in the Gospel of John just before His crucifixion.

ChiRho

17th May 2005, 09:37 AM

No it isn't. I like it. I like the idea of being able to voice an opinion and not be drawn and qaurtered. :)

Translation:

If we cant scream our modernism loud enough or defend our liberal views well, we will exterminate the opposition by force. Mods, attack!

Shocked. Completely.

I bet your a Socialist too.

SPALATIN

17th May 2005, 09:41 AM

SpaceProg

17th May 2005, 02:29 PM

Translation:

If we cant scream our modernism loud enough or defend our liberal views well, we will exterminate the opposition by force. Mods, attack!

Shocked. Completely.

I bet your a Socialist too.

This made me laugh. As someone who knows AngelusSax very well, I can tell you that no, he most assuredly isn't a Socialist.

He's not even a Liberal by definition. He just thinks there's some parts of the Bible that should be taken in the context of when they were written, and who they were written by and to (Specifically referring to Paul's telling women to be silent).

That's all.

RedneckAnglican

17th May 2005, 02:43 PM

No it isn't. I like it. I like the idea of being able to voice an opinion and not be drawn and qaurtered. :)

Besides, this may provide an opportunity for us to seek what unites, rather than to seek what divides us and therefore cause further disunity in Christ, which of course violates the prayer of Christ as recorded in the Gospel of John just before His crucifixion.

I am not sure what to say anymore...I am an ELCA Lutheran...and a fairly conservativve one at that (ChiRho isn't the only Lutheran Libertarian on these boards)...yes, some of the remarks made me angry and quite frankly hurt me a bit (go ahead...take your shots...call me a "crybaby" or whatever) I just reject the fact that if I don't believe every little thing someone brings up I am wrong or unLutheran...to be honest "unLutheran" doesn't really bother me I still quite new to the whole Lutheran thing...I try to talk to my pastor about some of this stuff and he tells me that, "you know more Luther than the majority of the congregation"...why is that?...because of you folks...all of you...the only thing that was happening that upset me was the "my synod can beat up your synod" stuff...I asked what brought us together in another thread and with the few serious answers I got stuff like "the name on the sign"...I don't appreciate my chosen faith path to be degraded like that...to be totally honest I agree with LCMS doctirine as much as ELCA...(more actually) with two differences (which I will not get into because I'm not opening that can of worms (or diet of?) again...there is NOTHING that says we can't debate...just that it doesn't degrade into name calling and my Church is better than your Church...I think that's it...ok...let me have it

SPALATIN

17th May 2005, 02:58 PM

I am not sure what to say anymore...I am an ELCA Lutheran...and a fairly conservativve one at that (ChiRho isn't the only Lutheran Libertarian on these boards)...yes, some of the remarks made me angry and quite frankly hurt me a bit (go ahead...take your shots...call me a "crybaby" or whatever) I just reject the fact that if I don't believe every little thing someone brings up I am wrong or unLutheran...to be honest "unLutheran" doesn't really bother me I still quite new to the whole Lutheran thing...I try to talk to my pastor about some of this stuff and he tells me that, "you know more Luther than the majority of the congregation"...why is that?...because of you folks...all of you...the only thing that was happening that upset me was the "my synod can beat up your synod" stuff...I asked what brought us together in another thread and with the few serious answers I got stuff like "the name on the sign"...I don't appreciate my chosen faith path to be degraded like that...to be totally honest I agree with LCMS doctirine as much as ELCA...(more actually) with two differences (which I will not get into because I'm not opening that can of worms (or diet of?) again...there is NOTHING that says we can't debate...just that it doesn't degrade into name calling and my Church is better than your Church...I think that's it...ok...let me have it

Y'know Ken,

That is the first honest rebuttal that we have had. I am sorry if it sounded like "my synod can beat up your synod" That is certainly something that we shouldn't be entertaining. But did they need to make a "special rule" up that in reality makes it difficult to have very open discussions? They had rules that prohibited bashing and trolling which I thought were just fine, problem was no one reported anything until afterward and then they come up with this new rule.

It is a rule that no other forum has nor will have because they all want unity at the cost of truth and they basically have it on the Liberal forums. Why can't we have the kind of forum here where there is no fear of retribution? There are people here today just hovering and waiting to see if their last post got them kicked off the forum. If they were to enforce this rule on all forums you would have a mass exodus from any and all conservatives.

I am sorry it has come down to this, but some people just had to cry foul when there really was no foul to be found and now we have this sarcastic attitude throughout the threads today that really didn't need to be there.

Ken, I have enjoyed your posts over the past couple of months and if I said anything in my posts that hurt you I am sorry. I stand for truth in scriptures and unfortunately someone felt hurt enough by the truth to report us and it has hurt us all.

Thanks for your honesty

revjpw

17th May 2005, 03:06 PM

No it isn't. I like it. I like the idea of being able to voice an opinion and not be drawn and qaurtered.

Why should you be able to "voice an opinion and not be drawn and quartered"? Everyone else here has been...by the moderators!!!

No wait, nevermind... I know why.

revjpw

17th May 2005, 03:16 PM

He just thinks there's some parts of the Bible that should be taken in the context of when they were written, and who they were written by and to (Specifically referring to Paul's telling women to be silent).

That's all.

And that's the way the liberals justify their theology, by throwing out parts of the Bible because they think they don't apply anymore.

This, by definition, makes him a liberal.

BTW, historical-critical interpretation of Scripture has never been accepted by the Church. This certainly isn't something that Luther espoused.

SpaceProg

17th May 2005, 03:49 PM

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 03:56 PM

SPALATIN

17th May 2005, 03:59 PM

Theologically, that makes the two of you extremely liberal. The entre Bible is God revealed. To reject that is indeed to be a liberal. That is not only conservative, but the true Christian standpointand the only valid Lutheran standpoint.

Ban me.

Dan, You may get banned here, but the Good news is that the Lord has still prepared a place for you in his mansion:thumbsup:

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 04:01 PM

Hey, if the prophets and my Lord were killed for revealing the truth, I find myself blessed that the worst I have to worry about is being banned from a message board.

SPALATIN

17th May 2005, 04:03 PM

Hey, if the prophets and my Lord were killed for revealing the truth, I find myself blessed that the worst I have to worry about is being banned from a message board.

Lift High the Cross.;)

SpaceProg

17th May 2005, 04:08 PM

Believe what you wish then, the way that you wish.

Whether I'll have a mansion in heaven, or a double-wide, or a lean-to shack isn't up to me to know. I just know that I'm saved by Christ. That's the top thing that matters is what Christ did for us. All this "liberal/conservative" Christian infighting pales in comparison to that. At least we could agree on this one little thing, right? What Christ did, and why he did it. Right?

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 04:13 PM

Believe what you wish then, the way that you wish. No, I will not believe "what I wish". That is your issue, not mine. I will believe the Word of God, in it's entirety, regardless of "my wish". Where I fail and fall into unbelief, I repent, not make excuses.

SpaceProg

17th May 2005, 04:18 PM

Well if you want to go into semantics, fine... I was just trying to keep this from continuing to escalate into "personal jab" territory.

Guess it's too little, too late, eh?

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 04:28 PM

No. Go ahead and believe awhat you want.

SpaceProg

17th May 2005, 04:30 PM

Well, I have to go to work soon, so I wish you all a good afternoon/evening.
I'll be back later if time and/or tiredness allows.

Take care.

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 04:34 PM

Have a good one.

Lotar

17th May 2005, 05:27 PM

Well, looks like this is going to stick without futher consideration. Makes me sad.

CF was so much better back before there were thousands of posters and the hyper-sensitivity set in.

I wrote this petition earlier; I'll post it again for you guys:

There is no wrong, there is no right, the circle only has one side…

Buddha, Buddha, Buddha

Wow… Just, wow…

When we first created this forum, it was done so that Lutherans who held to the historic Lutheran confessions could discuss and debate issues related to them. I haven't watched how the rules have changed, but it used to be that by "Confessional Lutheran" meant that you held to the Book of Concord. Now it seems that anyone who attends a church that has the word "Lutheran" on this sign can post whatever they want, and not be told they are wrong.

What would happen if CF decided to forbid OBOB from telling liberal Catholics, SSPX, and schismatics that they are wrong? What if CF made it acceptable to contradict papal infallibility in OBOB? I guarantee you would loose 90% of the RCCs here (either voluntarily or by banning) and rightly so. The very definition of confessionalism, by any denomination, is that something is right and something is wrong. When you say something in disagreement with the BoC, you should be offended if a confessional Lutheran doesn't tell you that you are wrong, and that your comment is heretical.

When I made my "announcement" back in September, I would have been offended if I hadn't got any of the replies I received. If guys like ChiRho replied with a "good for you" or "I disagree, but who's to say what is right and wrong" I would have been offended. Why? Because I know when they speak in this manner, it is out of concern.

To restrict them from proclaiming that there is truth, and that they have it, is restricting the very basic premise of their beliefs.

If an ELCAer, or whoever, wants to espouse a belief system outside of what is by definition Lutheran, they should expect to be contradicted. If you don't like your denomination being criticized (whichever it may be), then there are plenty of forums fit your purpose; ie, post in the Liberal or Anglican forums. Why take the one place that confessional Lutherans have, and turn it into a replica of these already existing forums?

I will miss all of my friends here who will be leaving, but I would do the same if I was in their place.

My prediction is that in 3-6 months, this forum will be 95% ELCA, and will be full of comments about the "mean", "arrogant" and "sexist" LCMS Lutherans. Just like the Table Talk forums over at Old Lutheran.

BTW, if this rule sticks, the forum should be renamed, out of respect for confessional Lutherans.

If you petition Erwin, I'll back you up.

ByzantineDixie

17th May 2005, 05:45 PM

If you petition Erwin, I'll back you up.

:kiss: How could I ever have been angry with you for leaving us!

Great stuff, Lotar.

I am in agreement. The forum name needs to be changed. We either are confessional and have the freedom to uphold the confessions...therein having the freedom to actually call others "WRONG" when they offer up non-confessional views or at the very least the forum name needs to be changed.

If defending the faith is not within the scope of the mission of this online community then it is good, proper and right that the confessionals leave. This would not be an appropriate place to congregate. Time is short guys and to spend it in "I'm OK, you're OK" discussions is poor stewardship and surely not edifying in the least.

How does one go about this petition thing?

revjpw

17th May 2005, 05:50 PM

Not necessarily, because it wasn't Christ that wrote Paul's letters. It was Paul. Paul isn't Christ. He'd be totally Liberal if Christ was the one talking and not Paul. The situation that Paul was writing about may not necessarily be THE situation to end all situations with regards to women being 'silent' and all that. Context and situations have to be taken into account, in my opinion.

Hey, if that makes him a liberal, I guess it makes me one too. So be it.
I know sure as heck that he's not politically Liberal at least. Nor am I.

This is absolutely unbeleivable!!:doh:
And they can't figure out why we say what we say on here??

Don't any of you people believe in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures??

If this offends anyone, good! But there is no way that someone can deny the Divine inspiration of the Word of God and be considered Christian. The Scriptures are where God is revealed to us, where His plan of salvation is revealed to us, where Christ is revealed to us, where God's teaching for the Church is revealed to us. Being a Christian requires that. Being a Lutheran requires that one be a Christian.

There are people here who deny that Paul's epistles are the Word of God. They are Divinely inspired, that means that they are inspired by God. Who is Jesus? By what you said above, He isn't God. Ergo...

I will continue to pray for you all.

(We'll see how long this post lasts.)

ChiRho

17th May 2005, 06:25 PM

Great stuff, Lotar.

Thank you...brother.

How does one go about this petition thing?

How do we go about this?

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 06:28 PM

Don't any of you people believe in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures??

Sure. But Paul never calls his own writings Scripture. So why do we?

If this offends anyone, good! But there is no way that someone can deny the Divine inspiration of the Word of God and be considered Christian.

The Bible says Jesus is the Word. The Bible never says, though, that the Bible is the Word.

I was unaware that belief in Christ, and His death and Resurrection and saving Grace, was no longer enough to make you a Christian. When did that change?

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 06:33 PM

BTW, historical-critical interpretation of Scripture has never been accepted by the Church. This certainly isn't something that Luther espoused.

Well, there's lots of things that historically were never accepted in the Church until they happened. Like women being in choir. Like lay people being allowed to read the Bible for themselves.

For a Church that was founded on the basis of reform, its members seem to be unwilling to even fathom that further reform may be necessary.

BTW, when people are translating the Greek from its giant one-word run-on look (which is how it appeared on the papayras), how do you know they put the breaks in the right places?

Lotar

17th May 2005, 06:34 PM

:kiss: How could I ever have been angry with you for leaving us!

No one can stay angry with me :holy:

:P

How does one go about this petition thing?

I don't know. Maybe bring it up in the forum suggestions? Or maybe send Erwin a PM?

Or maybe in the site contributer's forum... *flexes financing muscles* ;)

You used to be a mod; how would you have brought it up then?

Flipper

17th May 2005, 06:34 PM

Sure. But Paul never calls his own writings Scripture. So why do we??

Because it was inspired?

I was unaware that belief in Christ, and His death and Resurrection and saving Grace, was no longer enough to make you a Christian. When did that change?

True, but I thought believing that the Bible is 100% the Word of God was part of being a Lutheran.

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 06:39 PM

Sure. But Paul never calls his own writings Scripture. So why do we?

I have shown you that this is wrong before. Yet you continue in this error?

Jim47

17th May 2005, 06:49 PM

Sure. But Paul never calls his own writings Scripture. So why do we?

The Bible says Jesus is the Word. The Bible never says, though, that the Bible is the Word.

I was unaware that belief in Christ, and His death and Resurrection and saving Grace, was no longer enough to make you a Christian. When did that change?

If you believe in someone, as you say you believe in Jesus, shouldn't you also accept His Word?

Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jn 1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ "

Jn 1:16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Jn 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 06:58 PM

No, I will not believe "what I wish". That is your issue, not mine. I will believe the Word of God, in it's entirety, regardless of "my wish". Where I fail and fall into unbelief, I repent, not make excuses.

Yeah, it's yours too. You believe a verse that says women can't speak over about 20 that say they can and should, which I've listed elsewhere. So yeah... we all pick and choose, and to deny that is, in fact, a lie, or at the best, we've misinformed ourselves.

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 06:59 PM

If you believe in someone, as you say you believe in Jesus, shouldn't you also accept His Word?

Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jn 1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ "

Jn 1:16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Jn 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

I should, yes. However, I've not given up literally everything to follow him, and I know no one here has either... or we'd not be here using our computers to type these messages.

Hey, I believe the Gospels are the divinely inspired Word. It is my belief that the Holy Spirit has moved me to where I am. After all, in the smaller letters of John, we learn that any spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Son of God is from God.

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 07:04 PM

You can hold one or several verses against the others all you want, those of us who truly believe the Word, on the other hand, recognize there is a perfect internal consistency. It is our sinfulness and brokenness that keep us from seeing the consistency with full clarity.

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 07:07 PM

Indeed it is. And that consistency is that the numerous verses in support of women in ministry are there for a reason, to show that it's allowed. Paul's warnings against it had to do with the uneducatedness of women in congregations he wrote to, as they were not allowed to learn up until that point. Also had to do with Jewish backgrounds, and pagan backgrounds, and backgrounds where, if a woman spoke at all in public, she was deemed a whore by that public, so Paul didn't want the Church to suffer the stigma of "whore church".

It really is the fool who refuses to acknowledge that there is tension between some of the Scriptures, and a bigger fool will recognize but not wrestle with it at all. And yeah, I felt moved to say that by some spirit force... my guess is it was the Holy Spirit, but I'm sure you'll tell me how wrong that is (you being pretty much anyone here... save one or two of ya).

night2day

17th May 2005, 07:19 PM

I haven't been able to catch up to all the new posts since yestserday (#$&%@!! migraines) yet...but guess with this thread and the titles of some of the others sounds self explanitory.

I'm somewhat suprised someone brought up the LCMS vs ELCA/us vs them type scenario when, yes, there are drastic differances within the core fundamental docterines of each denomination. And yes, technically, going by those core fundamental doctrines ELCA isn't Lutheran. While the LCMS technically has core fundamental doctrines that are faithful to the scriptures there's an erosion growing within the synod calling for a "big tent" of open ideas" where just about every hearsy under the sun can be welcomed in. All this would do is bring in much more confusion and a leading away from the truth of the Scriptures.

There are confessional Lutherans within both camps which believe and hold to the inspired, inerrent, and infallible word of God as is. A remnant. Until they discuss the hard issues at stake and seek unity under pure Biblical Doctrine as it states to do so within the scriptures, unity nor harmany will exist. Although the true unity won't ever exist this side of Heaven because of this world of sin.

The Church is at war! And what better way for Satan to try and destroy it by setting up his own tabernacle from within? It was foretold...

2 Timothy 4:3-4
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Ultimately, regardless if one has an alternate opinion outside the Scriptures or not, the Scriptures will remain standing as is, pointing to Christ. One of my favorite hymns is Thy Strong Word. Another favorite is below. Note the One, not many:

The Church's One Foundation
by Samuel J. Stone, 1839-1900
Hymn #473
Text: Eph. 2:20

1.
The Church's one foundation
Is Jesus Christ, her Lord;
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died.

2.
Elect from every nation,
Yet one o'er all the earth,
Her charter of salvation
One Lord, one faith, one birth.
One holy name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

3.
The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord, to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end.
Though there be those that hate her.
False sons within her pale,
Against both foe and traitor
She ever shall prevail.

4.
Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping;
Their cry goes up, "How long?"
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.

5.
Mid toil and tribulation
And tumult of her war
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore,
Til with the vision glorious
Her longing eyes are blest
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.

:angel:

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 07:21 PM

Indeed it is. And that consistency is that the numerous verses in support of women in ministry are there for a reason, to show that it's allowed. Paul's warnings against it had to do with the uneducatedness of women in congregations he wrote to, as they were not allowed to learn up until that point. Also had to do with Jewish backgrounds, and pagan backgrounds, and backgrounds where, if a woman spoke at all in public, she was deemed a whore by that public, so Paul didn't want the Church to suffer the stigma of "whore church".
Just like before, I am open to your idea; just convince me by Scripture and plain reason. Show me that those verses you talk about truly suggest that women are intended to be Pastors. I have always been open to this idea, but you have never presented a comprehensive exegetical argument.

It really is the fool who refuses to acknowledge that there is tension between some of the Scriptures, and a bigger fool will recognize but not wrestle with it at all. And yeah, I felt moved to say that by some spirit force... my guess is it was the Holy Spirit, but I'm sure you'll tell me how wrong that is (you being pretty much anyone here... save one or two of ya).Tension is not contradiction.

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 07:28 PM

Sure. But Paul never calls his own writings Scripture. So why do we?Not only does Paul refer to his own writing and teaching as being from God, the Apostle Peter even calls Paul's writing Scripture.

:doh:Geez! Start reading the Bible!

RedneckAnglican

17th May 2005, 07:29 PM

There are confessional Lutherans within both camps which believe and hold to the inspired, inerrent, and infallible word of God as is. A remnant. Until they discuss the hard issues at stake and seek unity under pure Biblical Doctrine as it states to do so within the scriptures, unity nor harmany will exist. Although the true unity won't ever exist this side of Heaven because of this world of sin.

that's what I've been trying to say...Just because you belong to an ELCA Church doesn't have to mean that you agree with all of the Doctrine of that particular Church...I don't agree with everything the ELCA does...that's why I joined WordAlone...so to say that I believe something just because it is aspoused by the Church is not right...Just like the several posts where some LC-MS members didn't agree with some of the things thier Church was doing...what does that make us?...a lot more alike than we want to admit...

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 08:08 PM

Just like before, I am open to your idea; just convince me by Scripture and plain reason. Show me that those verses you talk about truly suggest that women are intended to be Pastors. I have always been open to this idea, but you have never presented a comprehensive exegetical argument.

As a note: I'll post the Scripture references, but you can read them for yourself from your own Bible to check on this how you like, okay? Also, the NIV is used here unless I say otherwise.

Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20)

A prophetess is a spiritually powerful office (not necessarily in a man-made institution like we see today, but office in a more general God/spiritual sense... remember there were no churches then as we see them today).

Esther 4:5
Esther here exercises authority over a man.

Esther 4:17
Again, she exercises authority over a man. He carries out her instructions.

Esther 9:18-32

It is Esther's decree that makes the celebration a reality... and to this point she's not had a sex change to become male. Spiritual authority as well as legal authority here... over men.

Judges 4:1-24
In verse 4 we see Deborah is alos a prophetess. Different from Miriam, however, in that she is married. She is also the legal ruler of Isreal. If only men are, by God, to have authority, then Deborah would not have been either.

In verse 6, Deborah speaks with God-given authority in COMMANDING Barak to do something. Spiritual leadership given and asserted... by a woman.

2 Kings 22:14-20

The prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah were active in ministry at the time of this account... and neither man was sought. A prophetess (woman, remember) was sought out instead. By the way, she's married, and her husband isn't mentioned in a leadership role.

Now, let's look at the New Testament. As a point of order, consider (for the sake of this post) that "minister" has 2 senses... 1) Minister as every Christian does while serving. 2) Minister in the sense of the ministry.

Mark 15:40-41
This falls under the 1st sense of minister.

Luke 2:36-37
Our first glimpes intothe NT mention of a female ministry. The Greek word we translate as prophetess is in the feminine gender. If she can hold the office before Resurrection, there's no reason to deny her that office after Resurrection.

Luke 8:1-3
The Twelve referred to here are the Twelve Disciples. It also shows that women were disciples too. I don't think anyone will argue that women can't be disciples. Granted, there's no 2nd sense of minister here, but notice the financial contribution to Jesus' ministry by these women. That's important for the time... it should have been men funneling in money.

Luke 10:1-20
This does not state whether these are men or women or both. It does not specifially mention the word preach, but we acknowledge that these people were to share a specific message. That would be ministry of preaching. Verse 19 we recognize as applying to males and females. If that is so, then so too is verse 9. That then, is a clear call for men as well as women to preach. 2nd sense.

Acts 1:14
Men and women are side by side. That was a "liberal" concept at the time. They are joined in a unity of prayer. Men and women received baptism of the Holy Spirit simultaneously.

Acts 8:3
Acts 22:4
These verses show us that women shared equally in suffering of persecution for the sake of the gospel.

Acts 16:13-15
Although this section of Scripture does not show that women should necessarily be in the ministry, it does display that the attitude of God toward women is not secondary. These were the first people in Macedonia to hear the Gospel. God did not deliver the Gospel first to men, second to women. Compare that to Paul, who delivered first to Jews and then to Gentiles. In this way, Paul delivered the message to those on the priority list of God. When it comes to men and women, however, there is no priority list.

Romans 16:1
The word translated here is identical to the word we translate as "deacon" elsewhere. Diakonos. It is inconsistent to say "deacon" with men and "servant" with women.
Here is a clear example of a woman holding a spiritual office that began in the NT.

Romans 16:3-5
Husband and wife pastoral team. Customarily, the man is introduced first... but here we have Paul, himself, mentioning the woman first. This implies Priscilla had a higher position of authority. Two people are co-pastors of a church that met in their home, and the woman was listed first. Ladies and gentlemen, meet the first clear-cut woman pastor in the NT (that I can find).

REST OF STUDY (as in, I finally have time to post the edit for this):

Romans 16:6

Not exactly clear as to just who Mary is in this verse, but I doubt Mary is a guy. She's serving in some capacity, most likely spiritually.

Romans 16:7

Junias in this verse has a gender that we can't establish, since the name appears in the accusative form in the Greek. Some think that the name refers to a woman because it appears with Andronicus and means a person named Junias, wife of Andronicus. Also, the Greek word for kinsmen (ASV and KJV) is more accurately translated in the NIV as "relatives". The translation as kinsmen in ASV and KJV does not indicate that these are men.
"Outstanding among the apostles" could mean that this husband & wife team were great apostles. At the very least it could show that they were highly respected by the apostles. It is very possible that we are looking at a reference to a female apostle.

1 Cor. 11:5-16
1 Cor. 14:33-35

Many have taken 1 Cor 14:33-35 to mean that women cannot preach (be a pastor, what-have-you). After all, it clearly says that women should be silent in church. Get that? Silent in church. Not "well they can teach Sunday School, or children", but absolutely, bar-none silent in church. Zippo. No-speaky-speaky.
We cannot take one section of Scripture and interpret it separately from the rest of Scripture. If we are to follow the context of the book of 1 Corinthians, we must look back to chapter 11 (now you see why it's cited just above the 14th chapter). We see a clear instruction for women to follow during their prophesying... and I doubt anyone would prophesy by sign-language or shadow-puppets.

Yet chatper 14 says women are to be silent... so which is it? Can they prophesy or not?

During this period (yes, we're including some historical factiods here... so listen to them or ignore them as you please) it was customary for churches to meet in the synagogues. The men sat on one side of the building and the women sat on the other side. The Corinthian church had women yelling across the church to their husbands and asking what the preacher was explaining (remember, up until this time, it was customary for women to not even be there at all). This created much confusion and completely disrupted service. Paul is merely telling these particular women to not do that. He's saying that service should not be interrupted by shouting across the church... and since men weren't the ones doing it, it's very unlikely Paul would say "and also men, be quiet too", since they already had that down.

Colossians 4:15

The NIV is the only translation (to my knowledge) that refers to Nympha as a woman. the ASV says "their house" and the KJV says "his house". For those without the NIV, it says "and to Nympha and the church in her house." Just so we're clear.

Philippians 4:3

Possibly the women refered to here are not apostles, but they received commendation by Paul as fellow workers contending by his side for the gospel with Paul. Can we give these women any less of a position of Silas, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus, and many other notable men in the ministry? Paul made no such distinction, so at the risk of being a heretic, neither will I.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

This section of Scripture is apparently the main problem in the entire Bible as to women in ministry. It says that women are not to teach men. If this is the case we clearly have direction that women are not to be in the ministry. Also, women are not to have authority over men. So women should be completely rejected for ministry purposes.

Women have been protrayed in various ministry roles in previous Bible citations. So, do we have a contradiction in the Scriptures? No.

The context of the Scriptures shows that we are talking about a marital relationship. We learned in 1 Cor. 14 that women were to learn in silence and talk to their husbands at home to clarify what they had heard at church. This is simply a continuation of that doctrine (meaning it's not a new doctrine outlining ministry roles).

In a husband-wife relationship this Scripture clearly states that there is one head. If a man is a pastor and his wife is part of the congregation their relationship is one of pastor-parishoner. The same thing can be applied if a woman is a pastor and her husband is in the congregation. Still pastor-to-parishoner. She isn't teaching over him as a wife, but as a pastor. This is not a contradiction of Scripture but a distinction between two different relationships. One is marital and the other is pastoral.

Any other interpretation of this Scripture rejects to context of the entire Bible up to this point... which includes Gospels with those red-letters of Jesus, by the way. Again, we should not (though many of us often do) take an isolated Scripture passage and reject absolutely everything else we have learned about a subject in the entire Bible to come up with doctrine (unfortunately, this is done all the time to make way for doctrine, some conservative and some liberal).

Acts 18:26

This shows a woman (Priscilla) working with her husband (Aquilla, also note that this is working with, not working for), to teach a man (Apollos) in the knowledge about God. This is a clear New Testament illustration of a woman TEACHING A MAN. Surprisingly to some, she wasn't stricken dead or with disease for this, but I digress.....
This points out for us that the context of 1 Timothy 2 MUST be that of a husband and wife, or the Scripture would be inaccurate.

1 Peter 3:7

The Scriptures plainly teach that we are to respect wives with equality. If we do not, our prayers will be hindered. The word "weaker" here is speaking of physical strength, not physical.

Conclusions:

1. Salvation comes equally to men and women.

2. Men and women suffer equally for Christ.

3. Menand women equally receive their reward in heaven.

4. Our prayers will suffer if we don't treat wives with equality (TRUE equality, not lip-service equality where we say they're equal but then limit their potential as we see fit).

5. Christ had male and female disciples.

6. Clearly women held offices, as in Eph 4:11

7. The culture of the NT times was extremely male dominated.

8. The NT reflects the male authrotiy perspective.

9. There are many references in the NT that say men but mean body of Christ (Rom 12:1-8, Rom 12:1)

10. It does not dishonor God for men to accept women as equals or to place ourselves (as men) under their authority except in the marital relationship.

11. Husbands are the designated heads of the homes. Their requirement is to treat their wives as (actual) equals and to submit to them (Eph 5:21-33)

12. There is no distinction in the scriptures between women in ministry and women elders.

Note: The study was done by Rev. Timothy E. Russ. I took the highlights and posted those here. I would have just linked the study, but the study is no longer on the web-site. Fortnuately, I have a print copy that I could work from.

Lotar

17th May 2005, 08:16 PM

Flipper

17th May 2005, 08:29 PM

night2day

17th May 2005, 09:14 PM

In the LCMS, there are a lot of women in missionary leadership roles in 3rd world countries, doing in many instances what they can't find men to do. A small group friend of mine, a female, is getting ready to go to Guatamala to do just that.

What do you all think about this? Being that it is wrong for women to lead in churches, it shouldn't be different in those 3rd World Countries. Should all missionary women be recalled?

I'm not saying this to trap anyone, I'm very much aware of what the Bible says, and that God's ways are not ours. Just want to know if this was considered in your interpreting of scripture, and what you suggest should be done about it.

Considering Scripture, look back. Within the Scriptures whenever women filled a spiritual role of leadership it was due to the fact men were not available to fill them or men had rejected them. (The Prophetess Deborah comes to mind for instance.)

Men taking over the role of spiritual leadership is within both Old and New Testaments. Men being chosen goes back to the Fall of creation when God said to the woman the man would rule over her. (Genesis 3) Before the Fall Eve was first Adam's help mate.

Sin changed everything afterwords.

revjpw

17th May 2005, 09:58 PM

BTW, when people are translating the Greek from its giant one-word run-on look (which is how it appeared on the papayras), how do you know they put the breaks in the right places?

Because I can read and interpret Greek. Context is king when dealing with Greek texts.

AngelusSax

17th May 2005, 10:26 PM

Because I can read and interpret Greek. Context is king when dealing with Greek texts.

Does the Greek you read look like this, or:

Doesthegreekyoureadlooklikethis

What we have left of the copies of the paparyas leaves were the latter. We're best-guessing that we put in word-breaks where they were meant to be... and we're guessing no one made a pen-stroke a little off to make "rasin" become "virgin" or something.

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 10:31 PM

(I gotta run now, but I'll edit this with a further study later.)I'm looking forward to that further work Angelus.

ByzantineDixie

17th May 2005, 10:44 PM

I'm looking forward to that further work Angelus. Dan!!! What are you still doing here! I thought they would have pulled your plug by now!

(Ban me...you crack me up!)

:hug:

revjpw

17th May 2005, 10:54 PM

Does the Greek you read look like this, or:

Doesthegreekyoureadlooklikethis

What we have left of the copies of the paparyas leaves were the latter. We're best-guessing that we put in word-breaks where they were meant to be... and we're guessing no one made a pen-stroke a little off to make "rasin" become "virgin" or something.

I have studied several ancient manuscripts, thank you very much. I know what they look like.

My quoting the Confessions of the Lutheran Church gets me a warning and a deleted post. Yet your sarcasm goes unchecked. Hmmm... :scratch:

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 11:31 PM

FYI, women deacons in the early Church served a non-liturgical role. Mainly they were there to perform baptisms, for the sake of modesty, since it was done in the nude.

IMO, I'll wait until I am perfect, before I try to interprete Scripture to fit into my own personal ethical system. Of course, then I won't need too.

*slinks out the backI will admit, it will take some mighty strong in-context arguments explaining not only how women can be used by God, but specifically in the singular role of pastor in Christ's Church.

On the other hand...

Angelus,

Don't think I'm completely discounting your concerns, though. I'll even give you some information and names you can use to build your case.

Thecla, converted by Paul, was a missionary and prophetess until she was martyred. Tertullian, writes about a woman in his congregation who served as a counselor and healer. Pliny writes about two slave women he tortured who were deacons. Melania the Elder founded a number of monasteries. Melania the Younger followed in her grandmothers footsteps to founded many more monasteries, including buying entire islands. Her and her husband also ransomed captives and helped the poor and sick. St Jerome expresses his "reverence, respect and veneration" for the "saintly Paula". He quite clearly held that women can be "the gate of heaven". St Augustine writes in his Letter to Proba on prayer that he regarded women as "made in the image of God". Augustine and Jerome are among the Church fathers of the fourth century who invoked the law of God to protest against civil laws of the time which discriminated in various ways against women. And finally, St Bernard refers to women in many of his writings and shows great respect for their intelligence and their spiritual insights.

No solid evidence of women as pastors, though.

revjpw

17th May 2005, 11:33 PM

As a note: I'll post the Scripture references, but you can read them for yourself from your own Bible to check on this how you like, okay?

Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20)

A prophetess is a spiritually powerful office (not necessarily in a man-made institution like we see today, but office in a more general God/spiritual sense... remember there were no churches then as we see them today).

Esther 4:5
Esther here exercises authority over a man.

Esther 4:17
Again, she exercises authority over a man. He carries out her instructions.

Esther 9:18-32

It is Esther's decree that makes the celebration a reality... and to this point she's not had a sex change to become male. Spiritual authority as well as legal authority here... over men.

Judges 4:1-24
In verse 4 we see Deborah is alos a prophetess. Different from Miriam, however, in that she is married. She is also the legal ruler of Isreal. If only men are, by God, to have authority, then Deborah would not have been either.

In verse 6, Deborah speaks with God-given authority in COMMANDING Barak to do something. Spiritual leadership given and asserted... by a woman.

2 Kings 22:14-20

The prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah were active in ministry at the time of this account... and neither man was sought. A prophetess (woman, remember) was sought out instead. By the way, she's married, and her husband isn't mentioned in a leadership role.

You said yourself that there were no churches then, so God's not giving women authority in the Church wouldn't be addressed in the OT. So all of this is moot.

Now, let's look at the New Testament. As a point of order, consider (for the sake of this post) that "minister" has 2 senses... 1) Minister as every Christian does while serving. 2) Minister in the sense of the ministry.

Mark 15:40-41
This falls under the 1st sense of minister.

This has nothing to do with the Pastoral office.

Luke 2:36-37
Our first glimpes intothe NT mention of a female ministry. The Greek word we translate as prophetess is in the feminine gender. If she can hold the office before Resurrection, there's no reason to deny her that office after Resurrection.

A "prophetess" is not a Pastor. A "prophetess" does not have the responsibilities and authority of the priests in the Temple, either.

Luke 8:1-3
The Twelve referred to here are the Twelve Disciples. It also shows that women were disciples too. I don't think anyone will argue that women can't be disciples. Granted, there's no 2nd sense of minister here, but notice the financial contribution to Jesus' ministry by these women. That's important for the time... it should have been men funneling in money.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Pastoral office or its duties.

Luke 10:1-20
This does not state whether these are men or women or both. It does not specifially mention the word preach, but we acknowledge that these people were to share a specific message. That would be ministry of preaching. Verse 19 we recognize as applying to males and females. If that is so, then so too is verse 9. That then, is a clear call for men as well as women to preach. 2nd sense.

Nothing in this context at all to suggest that women were called to preach or carry out any pastoral duties.

Acts 1:14
Men and women are side by side. That was a "liberal" concept at the time. They are joined in a unity of prayer. Men and women received baptism of the Holy Spirit simultaneously.

So what? What does this have to do with the Pastoral office?

Acts 8:3
Acts 22:4
These verses show us that women shared equally in suffering of persecution for the sake of the gospel.

Again, this has nothing to do with the duties of the Pastoral office.

Acts 16:13-15
Although this section of Scripture does not show that women should necessarily be in the ministry, it does display that the attitude of God toward women is not secondary. These were the first people in Macedonia to hear the Gospel. God did not deliver the Gospel first to men, second to women. Compare that to Paul, who delivered first to Jews and then to Gentiles. In this way, Paul delivered the message to those on the priority list of God. When it comes to men and women, however, there is no priority list.

Same thing as Galatians 3, but it is not talking about the Pastoral office.

Romans 16:1
The word translated here is identical to the word we translate as "deacon" elsewhere. Diakonos. It is inconsistent to say "deacon" with men and "servant" with women.
Here is a clear example of a woman holding a spiritual office that began in the NT.

The feminine form of deacon is deaconess. It simply means "helper." It is not a title for the Pastoral office.

Romans 16:3-5
Husband and wife pastoral team. Customarily, the man is introduced first... but here we have Paul, himself, mentioning the woman first. This implies Priscilla had a higher position of authority. Two people are co-pastors of a church that met in their home, and the woman was listed first. Ladies and gentlemen, meet the first clear-cut woman pastor in the NT (that I can find).

This is laughable. This passage says no such thing. It mentions a Church that meets in Priscilla and Aquilla's house. It says nothing about either one of them being a Pastor or holding any office. It just states that they host a Church in their home.

Try this: 1 Timothy 3:1-11
All of the qualifications for the Pastoral office are strictly for men. The fact that verse 11 specifically mentions "women" in this context (which is in reference to the overseers wives) clearly indicates that the qualifications for the Pastoral office cannot be intended for women.

Scripture cannot contradict itself. The only way that anyone can defend women in the Pastoral office is to discredit the Word of God, which you have done numerous times on this board.

Sorry, but your argument simply doesn't hold water.

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 11:36 PM

Dan!!! What are you still doing here! I thought they would have pulled your plug by now!

(Ban me...you crack me up!)

:hug:If I've gotten away with what I've gotten away with, I suppose I can stick around for awhile, at least until I do get banned! ;)

Protoevangel

17th May 2005, 11:47 PM

Sorry, but your argument simply doesn't hold water.Rev,

To be fair, he did say: "I gotta run now, but I'll edit this with a further study later."

night2day

17th May 2005, 11:59 PM

...Just because you belong to an ELCA Church doesn't have to mean that you agree with all of the Doctrine of that particular Church...I don't agree with everything the ELCA does...that's why I joined WordAlone...so to say that I believe something just because it is aspoused by the Church is not right...Just like the several posts where some LC-MS members didn't agree with some of the things thier Church was doing...what does that make us?...a lot more alike than we want to admit...

Personally, I feel it's better to address what such-and-such denomination's foundational teachings instead of stating what the actual members of what that denomination believe. But some people have trouble even going that far. My father, an LCMS minister, was having a Sunday morning Bible class and using a book (from the 70s or 80s?) What's Going On Among the Lutherans? which was basically laying out the doctrinal differances using published references from both Ausburg Press and Concordia Publishing House. In another case we were studying fundamental core doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. In both cases, even though only the doctrinal differnces were being discussed at length, there were some who felt the other churches were somehow being "bashed". Which, wasn't the case at all. Only compared with Scriptures and if it did not come from the scriptures, then where?

My feelings regarding the doctrines of ELCA, is that it teaches the foundation on shifting sand since the Bible can offically be taken however one wills, allagorical or no. As for my own synod, I see another Thrivent looming. :doh: The pure scriptural doctrines and teachings upon which the Lutheran Confessions rest aren't enforced...which leads to nothing but confusion. As far as "big tents" go, I agree, ELCA and LCMS are moving closer and in the same direction. Doctrine doesn't seem to matter much any more. Sad to say, this is happening all over Christiandom. It's not an isolated incident. But, we were talking about Lutherans in particular weren't we?

After the last synodical convention as well as the noted hi-jinks that took place during the convention there were quite a few confessionals who were wondering whether or not to leave the LCMS. As for me, the LCMS still maintains its foundational doctrines and confessions regardless what the elected president, his supporters, or several liberal groups such as JesusFirst or Daystar may elsewise push on through over others. I suppose when the chief foundational core doctrines the LCMS' claim are changed or altred beyond recognition it'll be the last straw.

However, I can understand some concern from a certain point-of-view. What denomination one belongs too, one will automatically come to the conclusion one holds fast and believe all, if not most of the teachings found there. Sterotypical, perhaps. But, it does tend to happen quite a bit. When it gets down too it this touches on the basics on what must be present within a church and what cannot be? What matters most and what doesn't matter at all? Why one attends and becomes a member of the church...

As for the scriptures, they themselves point out the purity of the Law and Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments as Jesus Christ Himself had commanded is the most important.

Edited to add: Shouldn't this forum be renamed just Lutherans if there's no more actual expected adherance to the confessions?

SPALATIN

18th May 2005, 09:04 AM

Personally, I feel it's better to address what such-and-such denomination's foundational teachings instead of stating what the actual members of what that denomination believe. But some people have trouble even going that far. My father, an LCMS minister, was having a Sunday morning Bible class and using a book (from the 70s or 80s?) What's Going On Among the Lutherans? which was basically laying out the doctrinal differances using published references from both Ausburg Press and Concordia Publishing House. In another case we were studying fundamental core doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. In both cases, even though only the doctrinal differnces were being discussed at length, there were some who felt the other churches were somehow being "bashed". Which, wasn't the case at all. Only compared with Scriptures and if it did not come from the scriptures, then where?

My feelings regarding the doctrines of ELCA, is that it teaches the foundation on shifting sand since the Bible can offically be taken however one wills, allagorical or no. As for my own synod, I see another Thrivent looming. :doh: The pure scriptural doctrines and teachings upon which the Lutheran Confessions rest aren't enforced...which leads to nothing but confusion. As far as "big tents" go, I agree, ELCA and LCMS are moving closer and in the same direction. Doctrine doesn't seem to matter much any more. Sad to say, this is happening all over Christiandom. It's not an isolated incident. But, we were talking about Lutherans in particular weren't we?

After the last synodical convention as well as the noted hi-jinks that took place during the convention there were quite a few confessionals who were wondering whether or not to leave the LCMS. As for me, the LCMS still maintains its foundational doctrines and confessions regardless what the elected president, his supporters, or several liberal groups such as JesusFirst or Daystar may elsewise push on through over others. I suppose when the chief foundational core doctrines the LCMS' claim are changed or altred beyond recognition it'll be the last straw.

However, I can understand some concern from a certain point-of-view. What denomination one belongs too, one will automatically come to the conclusion one holds fast and believe all, if not most of the teachings found there. Sterotypical, perhaps. But, it does tend to happen quite a bit. When it gets down too it this touches on the basics on what must be present within a church and what cannot be? What matters most and what doesn't matter at all? Why one attends and becomes a member of the church...

As for the scriptures, they themselves point out the purity of the Law and Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments as Jesus Christ Himself had commanded is the most important.

Edited to add: Shouldn't this forum be renamed just Lutherans if there's no more actual expected adherance to the confessions?

That was beautifully put Night.

revjpw

18th May 2005, 09:28 AM

Edited to add: Shouldn't this forum be renamed just Lutherans if there's no more actual expected adherance to the confessions?

I wouldn't even call it "Lutherans." Most of what is allowed to be posted here is not nor has it ever been espoused by the Lutheran Church and in many cases contradicts the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
:cry:

Perhaps something like "Higher Critical Ecumenicism" would fit much better.

SPALATIN

18th May 2005, 09:35 AM

SpaceProg

18th May 2005, 10:21 AM

I wouldn't even call it "Lutherans." Most of what is allowed to be posted here is not nor has it ever been espoused by the Lutheran Church and in many cases contradicts the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
:cry:

Perhaps something like "Higher Critical Ecumenism" would fit much better.

What's wrong with a little unity in the Christian denominations, huh? Like it or not, there's always going to be Liberal and Conservative Christians, so wouldn't it be better if we all learned to agree to disagree on the parts we just can't bring ourselves to accept, and try to understand the parts which we may not be so dead set against?

The only shifting sands I see here are two (At least) factions at odds with each other and telling each other that the ones that don't believe the way they do are unbelievably wrong, and the ones that do believe the way they do are wonderfully right.

Drawing lines between brothers and sisters in Christ is deviding a whole house of people, and to quote Abraham Lincoln "A house devided cannot stand".

revjpw

18th May 2005, 10:48 AM

Rev,

I didn't post that part, Night2day did. It was in her quote that I used. And isnt the word supposed to be "Ecumenicism"?

It's fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.:thumbsup:

revjpw

18th May 2005, 10:52 AM

What's wrong with a little unity in the Christian denominations, huh?

To pretend there is unity where none exists is wrong. (oops, I said "wrong":doh: )

Like it or not, there's always going to be Liberal and Conservative Christians, so wouldn't it be better if we all learned to agree to disagree on the parts we just can't bring ourselves to accept, and try to understand the parts which we may not be so dead set against?

You mean compromise the truth? Compromise the Word of God? Absolutely not!

The only shifting sands I see here are two (At least) factions at odds with each other and telling each other that the ones that don't believe the way they do are unbelievably wrong, and the ones that do believe the way they do are wonderfully right.

The only two factions here are those who hold to the Scriptures as the inspired, inerrant Word of God and the only source and norm of all teaching in the Church, and those who do not.

And possible a third, those who think that "I'm OK/You're OK" is an acceptable alternative to the truth of God. (oops, I'm getting close again..:doh: )

SPALATIN

18th May 2005, 10:54 AM

What's wrong with a little unity in the Christian denominations, huh? Like it or not, there's always going to be Liberal and Conservative Christians, so wouldn't it be better if we all learned to agree to disagree on the parts we just can't bring ourselves to accept, and try to understand the parts which we may not be so dead set against?

The only shifting sands I see here are two (At least) factions at odds with each other and telling each other that the ones that don't believe the way they do are unbelievably wrong, and the ones that do believe the way they do are wonderfully right.

Drawing lines between brothers and sisters in Christ is deviding a whole house of people, and to quote Abraham Lincoln "A house devided cannot stand".

You are such an American. The American way is to agree to disagree in order to preserve unity. But is the American way the Christian way? Did Christ say to the Pharisees "I don't agree with you, but hey just so we stay one happy family of chosen people that's all that matters."

I don't think so. He said "Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees. . ." He condemned them for the fences they put around the Law and yet violated the heart of it constantly. Truth should always be the factor to which we throw out the idea that unity is not so important. If it is more important for you to have unity than just please engage in small talk with me because if you bring up these issues I shall be forced by my allegiance to Christ and the truth to give up unity.

Flipper

18th May 2005, 10:58 AM

Considering Scripture, look back. Within the Scriptures whenever women filled a spiritual role of leadership it was due to the fact men were not available to fill them or men had rejected them. (The Prophetess Deborah comes to mind for instance.)

Men taking over the role of spiritual leadership is within both Old and New Testaments. Men being chosen goes back to the Fall of creation when God said to the woman the man would rule over her. (Genesis 3) Before the Fall Eve was first Adam's help mate.

Sin changed everything afterwords.

So it's ok for women to be trained to go teach in places where they don't have men to teach? Then when men are found, they can quit?

SpaceProg

18th May 2005, 11:15 AM

You mean compromise the truth? Compromise the Word of God? Absolutely not!
Is not the fundamental core of the entirety of Christianity the fact that: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son. That whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish, but have everlasting life."

Okay, surely all here can agree about this, right? Is this not what makes Christianity... Christianity? In this light, Liberal Lutherans/Christians are just as much "Good Christians" as Conservative Lutherans/Christians.

There are going to be disagreements. I'm not saying to take on beliefs that you think are wrong. What I'm saying is if both sides are equally unwilling to listen to the other, then why not try focusing on the commonalities you have instead of the differences? Maybe that'll soften both to give the other a second glance.

I'm just saying that sometimes the infighting and the accusations gets in the way of what makes a Christian a Christian. Christ is the key word here. Can we at least agree there? Jesus was The Word.

You are such an American.
Well, according to your icon, so are you.

SPALATIN

18th May 2005, 11:30 AM

Is not the fundamental core of the entirety of Christianity the fact that: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son. That whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish, but have everlasting life."

Actually, isnt' the Prodigal son the essence of God's love for us. John 3:16 is a good mantra, but I wouldn't call it the fundamental core exactly. It summarizes the purpose for which Christ came.

Okay, surely all here can agree about this, right? Is this not what makes Christianity... Christianity? In this light, Liberal Lutherans/Christians are just as much "Good Christians" as Conservative Lutherans/Christians.

There are going to be disagreements. I'm not saying to take on beliefs that you think are wrong. What I'm saying is if both sides are equally unwilling to listen to the other, then why not try focusing on the commonalities you have instead of the differences? Maybe that'll soften both to give the other a second glance.

I'm just saying that sometimes the infighting and the accusations gets in the way of what makes a Christian a Christian. Christ is the key word here. Can we at least agree there? Jesus was The Word.

Well, according to your icon, so are you.

Funny, I thought that hearing the word of God is what leads to making a Christian a Christian. I certainly hope no one ever gives me credit for leading them to Christ by just observing me because my works are like dirty rags.

If someone bases their opinion on the infighting and accusations they will never come to Christ. However, if they hear the word and let the Holy Spirit interpret the word for them in their heart they will be able to receive him.

Protoevangel

18th May 2005, 11:31 AM

Is not the fundamental core of the entirety of Christianity the fact that: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son. That whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish, but have everlasting life."

Okay, surely all here can agree about this, right? Is this not what makes Christianity... Christianity? In this light, Liberal Lutherans/Christians are just as much "Good Christians" as Conservative Lutherans/Christians.

There are going to be disagreements. I'm not saying to take on beliefs that you think are wrong. What I'm saying is if both sides are equally unwilling to listen to the other, then why not try focusing on the commonalities you have instead of the differences? Maybe that'll soften both to give the other a second glance.

I'm just saying that sometimes the infighting and the accusations gets in the way of what makes a Christian a Christian. Christ is the key word here. Can we at least agree there? Jesus IS The Word.

(highlight mine)

:amen:

We are all saved by the Grace of God, and the Sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. at the moment we have faith. We are not saved by the consistency of our doctrine or the righteousness of our behavior. We are all brothers and sisters here.

Incorrect doctrine, however eats at faith, and allows idolatry to creep in. To defend correct doctrine, i will utilize every means allowed. Jesus called the hypocrites fools and dullards, hypocrites fools and dullards. He used harsh language to make his point often. The servant is not better than his master. When I overstep my bounds and become motivated by anger and not love, I repent and apologize.

SpaceProg

18th May 2005, 11:44 AM

Dan, if you had your reps on I woulda given you a bit.

Good post. :)

AngelusSax

18th May 2005, 11:18 PM

I only have one question to ask:

If the Church reformed is always reforming, why have some of us decided it's time to stop reforming?

Jim47

19th May 2005, 12:45 AM

I only have one question to ask:

If the Church reformed is always reforming, why have some of us decided it's time to stop reforming?

Some rebell against tradition, some rebell against God.

It seems that there are very few who are willing to accept things as they were intended and are always looking for a way in which they believe is "new and improved". Its all nothing new though, as God says "there is nothing new under the sun" and "
There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Protoevangel

19th May 2005, 01:02 AM

I only have one question to ask:

If the Church reformed is always reforming, why have some of us decided it's time to stop reforming? What exactly do you think REformed means?

RE-formed (Back to the original form)
RE-turned (Go back to the original location)
RE-build (Build in the original location again)
RE-fined (Back to a pure state)
RE-union (Back together)

Did you really think REformed means creating something new? Far from it! REformed means we REturned to the true faith. The Lutheran REformers did nothing to make something new, they REturned to the faith catholic and eliminated the newish abuses of the Papacy.

It is true that we are always REforming, REbuilding and REfining, by REjecting and REfusing the new abuses and heresies that people are trying to REinsert into the true faith, to make it less than it is.

The ones who have stopped REforming are those who are adapting to the world's ways. Those who accept new teachings because they "feel good", those who are wiling to REject the truth in favor of a false "unity".

night2day

19th May 2005, 03:08 AM

So it's ok for women to be trained to go teach in places where they don't have men to teach? Then when men are found, they can quit?

Are you saying the LCMS doesn't have enough missionaries? I find this an odd statement if that were the case. A few years ago the man who is now enjoying his second term within the synodical office called back many of the missionaries and their families off from the fields. Many of these where either young men with families or those who had been on the field for awhile and really had gotten to know the people. Although they were told the reason why they were called back to the states was due to financial reasons...it was chiefly due to the president actually wanting funding for his Ablaze project.

So, if it's the LCMS missionary situation you're speaking of, if there's anyone pushing for women in pastoral roles within missionary work, my take is one need to look no farther than the current president, his supporters, including two groups known as "JesusFirst" and "DayStar".

The heart of the orginal question was in one of the earlier posts was, and I quote:

Should all missionary women be recalled?

Men and women have seperate spiritual roles within the Church as God has deemed already within the scriptures. The LCMS has not begun (and hopefully ever won't) ordain woman to be ministers out in the mission field or anywhere else even if certain segments are trying to slip it through. To what you are referring, I don't know if it's a group's way around it or...not. I have heard of women missionaries who aid in translating, school teaching, reading, ect. But, nothing close to filling the office of the pastor.

As said, even within the Scriptures it was an extremely rare emergency when women took over a spiritual leadership role over a congergational gathering within either Testament. And, further reading will remind that it "never stayed that way".

A good place to check into regarding LCMS Missions work can be found here: Lutheran Heritage Foundation & Missions (http://www.lhfmissions.org/)

night2day

19th May 2005, 04:55 AM

That was beautifully put Night.

*curtsies* Thanks. :)

I wouldn't even call it "Lutherans." Most of what is allowed to be posted here is not nor has it ever been espoused by the Lutheran Church and in many cases contradicts the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.:cry:

Even basic Christianity....

However, you can be speaking of two differnt things too. There's the offical foundational teachings held by a particular church which outlines in no uncertain terms what that church teaches and confesses...and then there is the unoffical acceptance of "everything else".

Perhaps something like "Higher Critical Ecumenicism" would fit much better.

True. It more than likely would. Still, this only reflects what has been going on in the churches for quite some time. Those in decision within CF have the freedom to choose what can and cannot be allowed on their own Boards whether we agree or not.

As a general question, who signed up and became a member knowing this site was ecumenical, that despite allowing differing doctrines to intermingle it would still try to form some type of unity (something God's word says is impossible by the way), yet did so anyway?

While I admittedly did so, it wasn't to help "unite the body of Christ". Only the Holy Spirit can do so through the purity of the Gospel. I can't. When it comes down to it, the online world is alot like the real world. And the real world doesn't carry banners stating "we promote this or that or the other thing" every time. St. Paul wrote within 2 Timothy 4:1-2:

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."

We can only present God's word as is and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. Regardless of the Higher Critical whatever...ect may toss.

SPALATIN

19th May 2005, 08:49 AM

I only have one question to ask:

If the Church reformed is always reforming, why have some of us decided it's time to stop reforming?

The Lutheran Church is Reforming
The Reformed Church has stopped.

AngelusSax

19th May 2005, 06:24 PM

Did you really think REformed means creating something new?

Well, I think it was new at one point to decide women were too inferior to have opinions... fortunately even most fundamental churches have gone away from that line of doctrine.

Some people saw it as "new" to say black people should not be forced into slavery by the fact they were black.

Personally, I think allowing women to speak their minds in ALL capacities is much less new than what we have. I personally see it as the ultimate in being reactionary, which is a far cry from liberal.

AngelusSax

19th May 2005, 06:33 PM

While I admittedly did so, it wasn't to help "unite the body of Christ". Only the Holy Spirit can do so through the purity of the Gospel. I can't.

This is true. However, never underestimate the power of the Spirit to move in and with people, to do the work of the Spirit using us as the vessels for that work. To do so, as far as I am concerned, teeters dangersously close to denying the power of the Holy Spirit... which may even be blasphemy of the Spirit, which Jesus said was absolutely unforgivable.

Protoevangel

20th May 2005, 02:03 AM

Well, I think it was new at one point to decide women were too inferior to have opinions... fortunately even most fundamental churches have gone away from that line of doctrine.
Come on AngelusSax, you are capable of so much better than this. "Women were too inferior to have opinions"? Don't make me laugh! Jesus clearly cared deeply for women as well as men. I have already given you information showng that many of the ECF's did as well. Martin Luther was a leading defender of the dignity of women. And the Lutheran Church has always held a high regard for women. Just because the Lutheran Churches who hold true to the Scriptural standards for pastors, does not, in any way, equate to this scandal you are trying to invent. And if they are interpreting those passages wrong, your slander and sarcasm certianly isn't going to help your case, anyway.

Personally, I think allowing women to speak their minds in ALL capacities is much less new than what we have. I personally see it as the ultimate in being reactionary, which is a far cry from liberal.
More of the same Angelus! Straw men are so easy to knowk down, aren't they?

If you really want to discuss this, I believe there is a study you said you were doing. I am ready to listen to a genuine Biblical defense of your position, Angelus. But these jabs of subterfuge are beneath you.

Some people saw it as "new" to say black people should not be forced into slavery by the fact they were black.
We'll just chalk this one up to your ignorance of the facts. You see, the "Biblical defence of slavery" was nothing more than political rhetoric started by Robert Lewis Dabney in 1851 to attempt to undermine the Abolitionist movement. You see, Angelus, the light of truth is not afraid of the darkness.

This all still changes nothing. The Reformation was about returning to the roots of our fath, not to create something new. I like the way you tried to slither and slip out of that one slick! Fallacies, straw men and red herrings, Oh My!

SPALATIN

20th May 2005, 08:37 AM

Come on AngelusSax, you are capable of so much better than this. "Women were too inferior to have opinions"? Don't make me laugh! Jesus clearly cared deeply for women as well as men. I have already given you information showng that many of the ECF's did as well. Martin Luther was a leading defender of the dignity of women. And the Lutheran Church has always held a high regard for women. Just because the Lutheran Churches who hold true to the Scriptural standards for pastors, does not, in any way, equate to this scandal you are trying to invent. And if they are interpreting those passages wrong, your slander and sarcasm certianly isn't going to help your case, anyway.

More of the same Angelus! Straw men are so easy to knowk down, aren't they?

If you really want to discuss this, I believe there is a study you said you were doing. I am ready to listen to a genuine Biblical defense of your position, Angelus. But these jabs of subterfuge are beneath you.

We'll just chalk this one up to your ignorance of the facts. You see, the "Biblical defence of slavery" was nothing more than political rhetoric started by Robert Lewis Dabney in 1851 to attempt to undermine the Abolitionist movement. You see, Angelus, the light of truth is not afraid of the darkness.

This all still changes nothing. The Reformation was about returning to the roots of our fath, not to create something new. I like the way you tried to slither and slip out of that one slick! Fallacies, straw men and red herrings, Oh My!

I think that he figures no one is really going to debate him on this so he comes out with the preposterous to just get our goat. Many of us have quoted scripture to him regarding the issue, but he refuses to understand biblical principles laid out for him by confessing that they were for that time only.

Besides I have only said that she shouldn't preach not that she doesn't have the ability. My own mother was a teaching leader in BSF for more than 10 years and she spent at least 4 or 5 as an area administrator. She taught many people the bible and most of them were women. For the last 3 years she has spearheaded the Life groups at her church and I know that she has led a couple of studies. She knows her bible very well, but in many respects she has bought into some of the theology of American Evangelicalism that I have come to despise. I tell you that it isn't her ability that should keep her from the pulpit, but what God has laid down as the model from scripture.

Scott

Protoevangel

22nd May 2005, 01:46 AM

I think that he figures no one is really going to debate him on this so he comes out with the preposterous to just get our goat. Many of us have quoted scripture to him regarding the issue, but he refuses to understand biblical principles laid out for him by confessing that they were for that time only.
Well, I don't think he is trying to be intellectually dishonest or anything. Rather, I think he is emotionally invested in his position. I know when I am emotionally invested in an argument, I have to re-read my reply a few times to remove or improve weak arguments. It took me quite a while to learn this.

I think he is honestly struggling. Did you accept all that is the truth the first, second, or third time even, that each piece was presented to you? Did you accept it simply because you wanted to? Or was it the Holy Spirit that moved you to belief, according to His own schedule? I can see where we have crammed a lot down his throat. It may take a while for this all to digest. In the meantime, I think we should be patient, and continue to love him like a brother. Continue to correct and even "smack" down the fallacious arguments, but try not to "kill" him with the truth. Of course, the line between showing, "smacking" and "killing" with the truth might be hard to distinguish, but then again, we can only do our best. It's the Holy Spirit that does the real work.

Angelus, Sorry to talk "about" you as if you were not here. No offence intended, ok bro?

Jim47

22nd May 2005, 02:31 AM

I am going to quote some scripture that to me explains why some can not accept scripture as written, and instead always try to use human reason to make sence of it.

What I want to make quite clear, and I do mean "QUITE CLEAR" I am not judging anyone, because the scriptures say that if you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confess faith in Him, you will be saved.

So here is my Biblical answer to the problem.

Mt 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

Mt 18:2 He called a little child and had him stand among them.

Mt 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

The reason I use this scripture is that it clearly states that we must become as little children, that is accepting God's Word without doubts. Now while I realize that there are still many that say "scripture is subject to interpretation".

Indeed it is, but when you have clear passages given to us, and especially by our own Lord, isn't it a little dangerous to deny what He is stating?

As further consideration of this, we have the following scripture:

Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

I think this is also a good place for the following scripture:

Phil 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Phil 2:14 Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16 as you hold out the word of life—in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing. 17 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. 18 So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.

And with those thoughts, again I would like to state that I am judging no one. We will all have to give an account to God and we all have a full time job watching our own words and actions.

There are many days that I wonder why God should love me, as I in no way feel deserving of His love or the gift of faith that he has given me. And therefore I pray that all may be given this wonderful gift, and that we may all humble ourselves before God and confess that His ways are above our ways and beyond our understanding. We can still accept what He has told us by faith. We are not required to understand, only to believe. :prayer:

night2day

22nd May 2005, 03:30 AM

This is true. However, never underestimate the power of the Spirit to move in and with people, to do the work of the Spirit using us as the vessels for that work. To do so, as far as I am concerned, teeters dangersously close to denying the power of the Holy Spirit... which may even be blasphemy of the Spirit, which Jesus said was absolutely unforgivable.

Going back to my post, I stated: "While I admittedly did so, it wasn't to help 'unite the body of Christ'. Only the Holy Spirit can do so through the purity of the Gospel." as well as added 2 Timothy 4:1-2.

It was through the Holy Spirit by which the 66 books of the Bible were divinely inspired and written by holy men within a span of 4,000 years. The sole reason of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, was and is to point the way to Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit can work through people indeed. I will not deny that. However, the Scriptures themselves tell us to be discerning. How are we to be discerning? We're to use the Scriptures themselves, the very ones God authored and holy men penned, The Holy Spirit won't work against the very Law and Gospel that He inspired and has been written.

Within the Lutheran Catechism, under the section of the Third Article of the Apostle's Creed:

SANCTIFICATION

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.

In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers.

On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ.

This is most certainly true.

This doesn't underestimate the Holy Spirit's power in the least, but confirms it. After all, who is the one given the credit but the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit?

This would be an example of Lutheran theology known as "Theology of the Cross" in which we focus on what God has done for us...not what we do for God. And in this case...it would be uniting Christians through the purity of His word.

Which is reason I had to wonder why the comment regarding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit regarding the matter. :confused: Blasphemey of the Holy Spirit is made by a person who was once or very close to being a Christian. (Jesus warned the religious leaders they were exceedingly close to comitting this sin simply because Jesus read what they were truley thinking of Him and His works in their hearts. They knew who He was.) It's unforgiveable because the individual has cut themselves off from ever being reconciled. They basically strangled the attmepts the Spirit made themselves and hardened their own hearts. Without the bringing of faith, there is no forgiveness of sins. Without any forgivenes of sins, no eternal life. And like in Romans 1 and elsewhere in the Bible, God gives the person over to their sins.

revjpw

31st May 2005, 01:46 PM

Abot 99.44% of this is pure speculation. Nothing about women serving in the role of an overseer/pastor is found ANYWHERE in Scripture. You have taken numerous passages way out of context and tried to input your own bias. This is a classic liberal tactic used to argue for a particular issue, but it does not stand.

A "church" that meets in someone's house does not at all mean that the owner of the house is a pastor/overseer. They are hosts of the congregation. Nothing more can be deducted from the Scriptures, yet you are trying to say that this equates to women pastors in these congregations. It says no such thing.

Your personal hermeneutic and your historical-critical interpretation of God's Word just doesn't cut it.

As a note: I'll post the Scripture references, but you can read them for yourself from your own Bible to check on this how you like, okay? Also, the NIV is used here unless I say otherwise.

Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20)

A prophetess is a spiritually powerful office (not necessarily in a man-made institution like we see today, but office in a more general God/spiritual sense... remember there were no churches then as we see them today).

Esther 4:5
Esther here exercises authority over a man.

Esther 4:17
Again, she exercises authority over a man. He carries out her instructions.

Esther 9:18-32

It is Esther's decree that makes the celebration a reality... and to this point she's not had a sex change to become male. Spiritual authority as well as legal authority here... over men.

Judges 4:1-24
In verse 4 we see Deborah is alos a prophetess. Different from Miriam, however, in that she is married. She is also the legal ruler of Isreal. If only men are, by God, to have authority, then Deborah would not have been either.

In verse 6, Deborah speaks with God-given authority in COMMANDING Barak to do something. Spiritual leadership given and asserted... by a woman.

2 Kings 22:14-20

The prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah were active in ministry at the time of this account... and neither man was sought. A prophetess (woman, remember) was sought out instead. By the way, she's married, and her husband isn't mentioned in a leadership role.

Now, let's look at the New Testament. As a point of order, consider (for the sake of this post) that "minister" has 2 senses... 1) Minister as every Christian does while serving. 2) Minister in the sense of the ministry.

Mark 15:40-41
This falls under the 1st sense of minister.

Luke 2:36-37
Our first glimpes intothe NT mention of a female ministry. The Greek word we translate as prophetess is in the feminine gender. If she can hold the office before Resurrection, there's no reason to deny her that office after Resurrection.

Luke 8:1-3
The Twelve referred to here are the Twelve Disciples. It also shows that women were disciples too. I don't think anyone will argue that women can't be disciples. Granted, there's no 2nd sense of minister here, but notice the financial contribution to Jesus' ministry by these women. That's important for the time... it should have been men funneling in money.

Luke 10:1-20
This does not state whether these are men or women or both. It does not specifially mention the word preach, but we acknowledge that these people were to share a specific message. That would be ministry of preaching. Verse 19 we recognize as applying to males and females. If that is so, then so too is verse 9. That then, is a clear call for men as well as women to preach. 2nd sense.

Acts 1:14
Men and women are side by side. That was a "liberal" concept at the time. They are joined in a unity of prayer. Men and women received baptism of the Holy Spirit simultaneously.

Acts 8:3
Acts 22:4
These verses show us that women shared equally in suffering of persecution for the sake of the gospel.

Acts 16:13-15
Although this section of Scripture does not show that women should necessarily be in the ministry, it does display that the attitude of God toward women is not secondary. These were the first people in Macedonia to hear the Gospel. God did not deliver the Gospel first to men, second to women. Compare that to Paul, who delivered first to Jews and then to Gentiles. In this way, Paul delivered the message to those on the priority list of God. When it comes to men and women, however, there is no priority list.

Romans 16:1
The word translated here is identical to the word we translate as "deacon" elsewhere. Diakonos. It is inconsistent to say "deacon" with men and "servant" with women.
Here is a clear example of a woman holding a spiritual office that began in the NT.

Romans 16:3-5
Husband and wife pastoral team. Customarily, the man is introduced first... but here we have Paul, himself, mentioning the woman first. This implies Priscilla had a higher position of authority. Two people are co-pastors of a church that met in their home, and the woman was listed first. Ladies and gentlemen, meet the first clear-cut woman pastor in the NT (that I can find).

REST OF STUDY (as in, I finally have time to post the edit for this):

Romans 16:6

Not exactly clear as to just who Mary is in this verse, but I doubt Mary is a guy. She's serving in some capacity, most likely spiritually.

Romans 16:7

Junias in this verse has a gender that we can't establish, since the name appears in the accusative form in the Greek. Some think that the name refers to a woman because it appears with Andronicus and means a person named Junias, wife of Andronicus. Also, the Greek word for kinsmen (ASV and KJV) is more accurately translated in the NIV as "relatives". The translation as kinsmen in ASV and KJV does not indicate that these are men.
"Outstanding among the apostles" could mean that this husband & wife team were great apostles. At the very least it could show that they were highly respected by the apostles. It is very possible that we are looking at a reference to a female apostle.

1 Cor. 11:5-16
1 Cor. 14:33-35

Many have taken 1 Cor 14:33-35 to mean that women cannot preach (be a pastor, what-have-you). After all, it clearly says that women should be silent in church. Get that? Silent in church. Not "well they can teach Sunday School, or children", but absolutely, bar-none silent in church. Zippo. No-speaky-speaky.
We cannot take one section of Scripture and interpret it separately from the rest of Scripture. If we are to follow the context of the book of 1 Corinthians, we must look back to chapter 11 (now you see why it's cited just above the 14th chapter). We see a clear instruction for women to follow during their prophesying... and I doubt anyone would prophesy by sign-language or shadow-puppets.

Yet chatper 14 says women are to be silent... so which is it? Can they prophesy or not?

During this period (yes, we're including some historical factiods here... so listen to them or ignore them as you please) it was customary for churches to meet in the synagogues. The men sat on one side of the building and the women sat on the other side. The Corinthian church had women yelling across the church to their husbands and asking what the preacher was explaining (remember, up until this time, it was customary for women to not even be there at all). This created much confusion and completely disrupted service. Paul is merely telling these particular women to not do that. He's saying that service should not be interrupted by shouting across the church... and since men weren't the ones doing it, it's very unlikely Paul would say "and also men, be quiet too", since they already had that down.

Colossians 4:15

The NIV is the only translation (to my knowledge) that refers to Nympha as a woman. the ASV says "their house" and the KJV says "his house". For those without the NIV, it says "and to Nympha and the church in her house." Just so we're clear.

Philippians 4:3

Possibly the women refered to here are not apostles, but they received commendation by Paul as fellow workers contending by his side for the gospel with Paul. Can we give these women any less of a position of Silas, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus, and many other notable men in the ministry? Paul made no such distinction, so at the risk of being a heretic, neither will I.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

This section of Scripture is apparently the main problem in the entire Bible as to women in ministry. It says that women are not to teach men. If this is the case we clearly have direction that women are not to be in the ministry. Also, women are not to have authority over men. So women should be completely rejected for ministry purposes.

Women have been protrayed in various ministry roles in previous Bible citations. So, do we have a contradiction in the Scriptures? No.

The context of the Scriptures shows that we are talking about a marital relationship. We learned in 1 Cor. 14 that women were to learn in silence and talk to their husbands at home to clarify what they had heard at church. This is simply a continuation of that doctrine (meaning it's not a new doctrine outlining ministry roles).

In a husband-wife relationship this Scripture clearly states that there is one head. If a man is a pastor and his wife is part of the congregation their relationship is one of pastor-parishoner. The same thing can be applied if a woman is a pastor and her husband is in the congregation. Still pastor-to-parishoner. She isn't teaching over him as a wife, but as a pastor. This is not a contradiction of Scripture but a distinction between two different relationships. One is marital and the other is pastoral.

Any other interpretation of this Scripture rejects to context of the entire Bible up to this point... which includes Gospels with those red-letters of Jesus, by the way. Again, we should not (though many of us often do) take an isolated Scripture passage and reject absolutely everything else we have learned about a subject in the entire Bible to come up with doctrine (unfortunately, this is done all the time to make way for doctrine, some conservative and some liberal).

Acts 18:26

This shows a woman (Priscilla) working with her husband (Aquilla, also note that this is working with, not working for), to teach a man (Apollos) in the knowledge about God. This is a clear New Testament illustration of a woman TEACHING A MAN. Surprisingly to some, she wasn't stricken dead or with disease for this, but I digress.....
This points out for us that the context of 1 Timothy 2 MUST be that of a husband and wife, or the Scripture would be inaccurate.

1 Peter 3:7

The Scriptures plainly teach that we are to respect wives with equality. If we do not, our prayers will be hindered. The word "weaker" here is speaking of physical strength, not physical.

Conclusions:

1. Salvation comes equally to men and women.

2. Men and women suffer equally for Christ.

3. Menand women equally receive their reward in heaven.

4. Our prayers will suffer if we don't treat wives with equality (TRUE equality, not lip-service equality where we say they're equal but then limit their potential as we see fit).

5. Christ had male and female disciples.

6. Clearly women held offices, as in Eph 4:11

7. The culture of the NT times was extremely male dominated.

8. The NT reflects the male authrotiy perspective.

9. There are many references in the NT that say men but mean body of Christ (Rom 12:1-8, Rom 12:1)

10. It does not dishonor God for men to accept women as equals or to place ourselves (as men) under their authority except in the marital relationship.

11. Husbands are the designated heads of the homes. Their requirement is to treat their wives as (actual) equals and to submit to them (Eph 5:21-33)

12. There is no distinction in the scriptures between women in ministry and women elders.

Note: The study was done by Rev. Timothy E. Russ. I took the highlights and posted those here. I would have just linked the study, but the study is no longer on the web-site. Fortnuately, I have a print copy that I could work from.

SPALATIN

31st May 2005, 02:21 PM

About 99.44% of this is pure speculation. Nothing about women serving in the role of an overseer/pastor is found ANYWHERE in Scripture. You have taken numerous passages way out of context and tried to input your own bias. This is a classic liberal tactic used to argue for a particular issue, but it does not stand.

A "church" that meets in someone's house does not at all mean that the owner of the house is a pastor/overseer. They are hosts of the congregation. Nothing more can be deducted from the Scriptures, yet you are trying to say that this equates to women pastors in these congregations. It says no such thing.

Your personal hermeneutic and your historical-critical interpretation of God's Word just doesn't cut it.

Raised on Ivory Soap I see. ;)

AngelusSax

31st May 2005, 02:44 PM

About 99.44% of this is pure speculation

Only to those who believe that out of some fear of women... just my experience in general.

You have taken numerous passages way out of context and tried to input your own bias.

I think it's you who takes one verse out of context and rejects everything else. I prefer not to reject the entire Bible for the sake of one verse... I guess that's not unanimous.

http://www.messiah.edu/whwc/articles/articles.htm

There's a link to a bunch of articles for you all to ignore/refute by knee-jerk. :)

SPALATIN

31st May 2005, 03:25 PM

Hey everyone there is two definitions of Grace

1. Angelus Sax's
2 The Bible's

Which one do you hold to?

revjpw

31st May 2005, 09:45 PM

Only to those who believe that out of some fear of women... just my experience in general.

Not too experienced, are you?
You know little or nothing of what you speak.

I think it's you who takes one verse out of context and rejects everything else. I prefer not to reject the entire Bible for the sake of one verse... I guess that's not unanimous.

I don't reject the whole Bible for the sake of one verse. I rely on the whole Bible to interpret each verse. You by your own admission do not do that.

You have taken each of the verses in your "study" and placed your own spin on every one of them. No Biblical basis for much of anything you have said on the matter, which you can't really do since you discount much of the Word of God as mere historical drivel that doesn't mean anything to anyone or anyplace other than when and to whom it was originally written. Why then would it be in the canon of Scripture? Why then has it been preserved and handed down through all these centuries? Doesn't make much sense to build an entire institution like the Church catholic on a bunch of writings that don't even apply anymore.

KagomeShuko

31st May 2005, 10:35 PM

This thread has been closed due to violations of CF rule 7.1 .

"7.1 You will not post about a specific staff member (or staff members) or about the specific actions of a staff member (or staff members) in a public forum UNLESS it is through the Staff Feedback Form. You may provide staff feedback, report a staff member or appeal a staff action by using the Staff Feedback Form on the Staff Team Listings page.