Smalcald Posted July 18, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Hi Floatingaxe, I don't want ever to deny the equal role of women, and the total equality of salvation in Christ. We know that in heaven there will not even be women or men, we are one. But scripture binds me for now, and 1 Timothy IS clear on this topic of who should be an overseer. Even if you removed the "he's" it is still obvious these passages are speaking of men, unless they also had gay marriage then:) 1 Timothy 3 1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well , having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well . 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. Worm Posted July 18, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.21 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2006 But Floatingax, Paul spells out that a bishop, for example, should be a man married to only one women? It is direct. It is male and specifically so. Smalcald, it should be obvious from what happened in the ELCA that those who pushed for and obtained women's ordination in that body have no interest in Scriptural authority. We can only hope and pray that the LCMS which has its supporters for this anti-biblical practice doesn't someday take this road. sw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jckduboise Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 seems to me that a dead horse is being beaten at this point. this is not a subject that is going to get cleared up (as I can see) until Christ returns and sets us free from all evil and deception by removing it from the face of the earth. Woe to those who take the word of God and twists it in such a way as to deceive multitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jckduboise Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 But Floatingax, Paul spells out that a bishop, for example, should be a man married to only one women? It is direct. It is male and specifically so. Smalcald, it should be obvious from what happened in the ELCA that those who pushed for and obtained women's ordination in that body have no interest in Scriptural authority. We can only hope and pray that the LCMS which has its supporters for this anti-biblical practice doesn't someday take this road. sw I attended a Lutheran church about a year ago, SW and the person teaching that day to the congregation was a woman. I did not return..there are just some things that cannot be abided..this is one, to me anyhow. Hey, we agree on something!! Scarey isn't it? (smiles) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted July 18, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted July 18, 2006 seems to me that a dead horse is being beaten at this point. this is not a subject that is going to get cleared up (as I can see) until Christ returns and sets us free from all evil and deception by removing it from the face of the earth. Woe to those who take the word of God and twists it in such a way as to deceive multitudes. Well it was cleared up 1900 years ago when 1 Peter was written, the issue was totally settled at that point. But you are right there will always be those who simply do not accept scriptural authority on certain points. The danger of course is as worm points out. Every congregation which has ignored scripture on this point is now ignoring scripture on even more important points, and ignoring it eventually on the main point. This is instructive for us today. The Episcopal Church USA was the first major US congregation to ordain women forty some years ago, today they won't even affirm that Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life, as it is true "exclusive". So that is the danger. Look at the congregations that have been ordaining women for decades, see where they stand on basic issues surrounding the faith today, then we see the danger. It is not about women, it is about scriptural authority. We are all wrong doctrinally on some points, I have no doubt about that. But when we ignore direct scripture as authoritative, well this leads us far far astray, eventually leading us away from Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted July 18, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted July 18, 2006 But Floatingax, Paul spells out that a bishop, for example, should be a man married to only one women? It is direct. It is male and specifically so. Smalcald, it should be obvious from what happened in the ELCA that those who pushed for and obtained women's ordination in that body have no interest in Scriptural authority. We can only hope and pray that the LCMS which has its supporters for this anti-biblical practice doesn't someday take this road. sw Well we will see. I doubt it, but one never knows. Praise God the word Synod means what it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jckduboise Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 seems to me that a dead horse is being beaten at this point. this is not a subject that is going to get cleared up (as I can see) until Christ returns and sets us free from all evil and deception by removing it from the face of the earth. Woe to those who take the word of God and twists it in such a way as to deceive multitudes. Well it was cleared up 1900 years ago when 1 Peter was written, the issue was totally settled at that point. But you are right there will always be those who simply do not accept scriptural authority on certain points. The danger of course is as worm points out. Every congregation which has ignored scripture on this point is now ignoring scripture on even more important points, and ignoring it eventually on the main point. This is instructive for us today. The Episcopal Church USA was the first major US congregation to ordain women forty some years ago, today they won't even affirm that Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life, as it is true "exclusive". So that is the danger. Look at the congregations that have been ordaining women for decades, see where they stand on basic issues surrounding the faith today, then we see the danger. It is not about women, it is about scriptural authority. We are all wrong doctrinally on some points, I have no doubt about that. But when we ignore direct scripture as authoritative, well this leads us far far astray, eventually leading us away from Christ. no disagreement here. I say amen to what you and SW have pointed out. Ignoring direct scripture as authoritative is very dangerous ground..I don't wanna play ball in it at all.. Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted July 18, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.43 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted July 18, 2006 This isn't some radical feminist movement we are talking about, nor is it deception on my part---in fact, the lack or denial of women in ministry is a result of a culture problem, that isn't much different than the male-dominated Jewish culture that Jesus found. He came to disrupt that. It is the church that is robbing women of the call of God on their lives. Well firstly, Jesus didn't come to disrupt the "male-dominated Jewish culture" at all. The Lord jesus lives and acted according to the culture in which He was raised. The Lord was a Jew through and through. Secondly, regardless of the Biblical office (There were only two in the early church) if a woman is placed in a position of authority over a man, especially in terms of teaching, she has violated the Word of God. The way I see it, with respect to all the arguments against Paul's writing, there are really only two choices: Either Paul was speaking of his own opinion - "I do not permit..." or he was speaking as the oracle of God. If he was giving his own opinion then you have a problem with the Bible being the pure Word of God. And if that's the case then there's a serious foundational problem between yourself and the Christian faith. If he was speaking as the oracle of God then your problem lies within your own concepts, and you need the Word of God to change your perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted July 18, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I don't know what ELCA and LCMS stand for! Well, folks, this is disintegrating into bashing. I will not sit by and be told I am deceived! I am done with this topic. I was trying to inform a bit and add to the discourse nicely, but it serves to inflame and cause people's beliefs to become even more firmly entrenched. I am praying for most of you here that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the truth of the matter. We do not need division over this subject. The devil laughs at this and I will not cause him to be pleased. Satan has attacked the church in 5 areas: The workforce (he halved it), men and their ministry (affected by Pride), women (abuse, denigrate, deny and rob of identity), God's character (bias against women show the world that God is unjust), God's image (Satan uses the rejection issue and emotional woundings to destroy the revelation of the image of God through the unity of man and woman in all areas). Satan hates us, folks! He loves this discord and this misunderstanding of God's intent for all of us to be equally serving Him, shoulder to shoulder as He created us in the first place! In Christ, we can show the world exactly how it is supposed to be...not buying into the culture that has hated women for centuries. The Greeks hated women, and the Romans also. That is how our culture is influenced. I am now refraining from this thread. God bless you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted July 18, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2006 But Floatingax, Paul spells out that a bishop, for example, should be a man married to only one women? It is direct. It is male and specifically so. Phoebe was a deacon not a deaconess as floatingaxe has explained. Yet, 'A deacon must be faithful to his wife...' 1 Timothy 3:12. The name phoebe should not be changed into a masculine one as Junia was into Junias. I should have been more consice the first time I posted regarding the relative 'qualifications' of a deacon. Just as an overseer/bishop 'should be the husband of one wife' or 'faithful to his wife' depending on what translation one references, so also a deacon 'should be the husband of one wife'/'faithful to his wife'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts