A Sea Of Red

Cider Jim wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 4:06 pm Does anybody on here have a seminary degree besides Super Jon and Purple?

I got a “C” in Dr. Towns’ intro to New Testament, does that count?

stokesjokes wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 4:40 pm
But, regardless, this is just an example of how 2 people can take the Bible just as seriously and come away with 2 different conclusions on a matter. Someone like MacArthur is entirely too dismissive of people with different viewpoints, and is often also uncharitable and unkind towards them.

Uncharitable and unkind to people with different beliefs is one of the best descriptions of MacArthur I’ve heard.

stokesjokes wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 4:40 pm
It’s Junia, the feminine, in all the earliest copies. You could probably guess why someone would want to change it.

But, regardless, this is just an example of how 2 people can take the Bible just as seriously and come away with 2 different conclusions on a matter.

I am not arguing one side or the other, just noting that it isn't clear and is highly contested. I believe that there are reasonable arguments on both sides... so I really concur with your conclusion. It is easy for two people to come away with two different conclusions. This is especially true when there isn't much context, and it is only a single verse.

The issue of "women as deacons" is a topic in a course I teach. Although there is much debate about that topic, there is much more evidence for the position of women deacons.

TH Spangler wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 5:19 pm https://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

Why doesn't this article refer to 1 Corinthians 14:34 ?

Any building that has a women preaching in it is not a church, and certainly not a bible preaching church.

ballcoach15 wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 5:27 pm

TH Spangler wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 5:19 pm https://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

Why doesn't this article refer to 1 Corinthians 14:34 ?

Any building that has a women preaching in it is not a church, and certainly not a bible preaching church.

So, Ballcoach, when Phoebe got up in front of the church in Rome and read Paul’s letter to them, does that mean it was no longer a church?

alabama24 wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 3:53 pm

Jonathan Carone wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 3:00 pm We also have biblical examples of women being prophets, deacons, and apostles. The only office of the church we don't have a biblical example of is that of elder (overseer).

"Apostles" is and overstatement and highly debatable. First, at most it was only one (so drop the plural). Second, the name isn't clear as to gender. Third, the phrase translated in Romans 16 could mean that the person (Junia or Junias) is "esteemed BY the apostles" or "esteemed AS an apostle." Those debates are significant and ongoing. I would not make doctrine on a single passage which is difficult to translate.

The notion of women as deacons is MUCH stronger (and a position I hold).

My plurality there was because of the positions, not that there were multiple examples of each roles. Sorry if that came across confusing.

alabama24 wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 4:54 pm I am not arguing one side or the other, just noting that it isn't clear and is highly contested. I believe that there are reasonable arguments on both sides... so I really concur with your conclusion. It is easy for two people to come away with two different conclusions. This is especially true when there isn't much context, and it is only a single verse.

This is the part that bothers me about the people who are so dogmatic about the tertiary issues that lack context. Well meaning believers can interpret some of the issues we have tons of context for differently. To think anyone can know for sure on other aspects - and be so sure they’re able to fight about it! - is beyond me.

Cider Jim wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 4:06 pm Does anybody on here have a seminary degree besides Super Jon and Purple?

For the record - my seminary degree is much more church strategy any Christian leadership based than theology based. There are many here much smarter than me on that front.

Jonathan Carone wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 3:00 pm

FlamesHighontheTide wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 2:39 pm Examples are women preachers/pastors are completely unbiblical and in direct disobedience to God's word.

This is not true. We have an example of Priscilla both teaching and pastoring (shepherding) to Apollos (Acts 18). We also have biblical examples of women being prophets, deacons, and apostles. The only office of the church we don't have a biblical example of is that of elder (overseer).

The example of Priscilla is not referring to the office of overseer(pastor/elder). Did she and Aquilla help Apollos in a discipling way? Of course they did. Women as prophets in the OT or deacons do not hinder nor contradict the clear teachings in the NT church about the way a church should function(1 Timothy 2 to 3). Women apostles? That title was only for the 12, which were all men.

My statement about women preacher's and pastor's was tied to my statement about one of Dr. MacArthur's convictions which is deeply grounded in the Bible. His position is directly tied to the office of elder/pastor and to preach on a Sunday morning(or whenever the weekly gathering of that local congregation happens) is to perform the function of an elder/pastor.

Furthermore, 1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." When the word of God is opened on a Sunday morning when God's people gather authority over the congregation is being shown by the preaching of the Word of God. When Beth Moore or any woman for that matter is doing this in church on a Sunday it is CLEARLY in direct disobedience to this.

Part of the difficulty in reading Paul is that we are reading one half of a conversation and in a context that is unfamiliar to us. Is it possible that Paul is saying that women can’t be pastors in all situations? Yes. Is it possible that Paul is responding to something happening in the specific church he’s writing to? Also, yes. Now, it’s even more complicated by the testimony of scripture showing women in various leadership positions in both OT and NT passages. To rip a verse out of any of this context, point to it and say, “see, it’s so clear!” is not taking the whole testimony of the Bible seriously.

You’re welcome to come to your conclusion, and it may even be right, but that doesn’t mean that someone who comes to a different conclusion is “clearly in direct disobedience to this.”

ballcoach15 wrote: ↑October 30th, 2020, 10:56 am I've never heard of any of those guys, except Stanley, and I would not walk across the street to hear him.

But you also think Cruz is worth listening to???

I favor "big name" speakers, and older speakers.

I dislike whipper snappers in skinny jeans and dark t shirts

ballcoach15 wrote: ↑October 31st, 2020, 5:19 am I favor "big name" speakers, and older speakers.

I dislike whipper snappers in skinny jeans and dark t shirts

1 Timothy 4:12

Hey @ballcoach15 , convo isn't for you. Or me for that matter.

Now, if I understand this correctly, this Nasser fella is wearing very tight leggings. As a result, some, but not all, are having impure thoughts during chapel and it's very confusing. Therefore this must somehow be connected to the early church guarding against provocative females reading scripture in public. Fascinating.

To quote Ulysses Everett McGill, “it’s a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.”

paradox wrote: ↑October 31st, 2020, 10:21 am Now, if I understand this correctly, this Nasser fella is wearing very tight leggings. As a result, some, but not all, are having impure thoughts during chapel and it's very confusing. Therefore this must somehow be connected to the early church guarding against provocative females reading scripture in public. Fascinating.

No, but Jr did spiralled out of control shortly after he started wearing peewee herman styles

It started happening long before that. Nobody seemed interested in listening.

thepostman wrote: ↑October 31st, 2020, 2:26 pm It started happening long before that. Nobody seemed interested in listening.

He started wearing them a loooong time ago. I should have listened.

You have to admit though, there's something strange about women preachers preaching to men in leggings. Come on men step up.

TH Spangler wrote: ↑October 31st, 2020, 2:56 pm

thepostman wrote: ↑October 31st, 2020, 2:26 pm It started happening long before that. Nobody seemed interested in listening.

He started wearing them a loooong time ago. I should have listened.

You have to admit though, there's something strange about women preachers preaching to men in leggings. Come on men step up.

Christianity has been watered down so much and it is clear by the ideology of our society. We can pretend that it's not but it clear especially when the Bible is direct about it happening.

That is certainly true for some churches but I don't think jeans have much to do with that.

thepostman wrote: ↑October 31st, 2020, 3:20 pm That is certainly true for some churches but I don't think jeans have much to do with that.

Nothing wrong with Jeans, it's men wearing ladies pants that's kind of strange.

There's a lot of sissy men these days,

Typically that kind of attitude develops in men who don't invest in the lives of younger men. Thankful for the older men in my life who have invested in my life. That is for sure.

Glad they didn't write me off due to my age or my pants