Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[awelight]

That is completely unbiblical. Human logic doesn't dictate the word of God or its application of it. Context does and the Authorial intent. You need to understand what is normative and what is descriptive in the word of God. The Holy Spirit not can use women HE does use women and HE does today. What about Ruth? Ruth is a book showing the genealogy of Christ and the coming Messiah.

What about Joel 2 and Acts 2? What about what Jesus said in Mark 16 In the scriptures where it says for example Ps 49:18

"Though while he lived he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself"
Are women to praise HIM too?

Are women covered in the word of God where they are not mentioned or only men?

Are women to be saved or are they saved by child baring as Paul said? Do they need to repent or only men? do they need to confess Jesus Christ as Lord or only men? Does the Holy Spirit come into women when they are saved or only men? Do only men Prophesy? IF so why did Joel get it wrong and Peter?

Apparently, you took great exception to me not taking the time to mention every woman that God has used over the past 6,000 years.

The individuals, who are responding to my posts, treat my comments as if I am some sort of woman hater. Throwing all sorts of Scripture at me about how God used this woman or that. I am well aware but I am also well aware, that those doing so, are trying to cloud the Truth in human reasoning. The reasoning goes like this:

Paul could not have meant for women to keep silent and not teach in the assembly because one must except the way God used women throughout history. They often prophesied and spoke aloud in various places. Therefore, women obviously have the right to teach and speak wherever they like. God used men in many great ways but all were not Apostles.

The problem with this reasoning is, that it does not bring one any closer to muting the literal words, given by Paul, in those two Epistles.

Further they refuse to answer the questions which are raised or should be raised:

1) If Paul did not mean for a woman to teach, then why did he say it?
2) If Paul said that a woman was to remain silent and it was shameful for her to speak, why did he say this?
3) Where was the woman not to teach and speak?
4) Why were all of Jesus' Disciples men?
5) Why were all of the Apostles men and not one single woman?
6) Why is there no mention of a woman Elder/Preacher?
--- (Please don't give some verse that does not mention this person holding this office. That would be subjective reasoning not proved by objective Truth). ---
7) Why did women call their husbands and ones with authority, "lord" in the Old Testament?
--- (Could you imagine a woman calling her husband "lord" in this day and age) ---

 

[awelight]

You claimed that they were "absolute parallels". They plainly are not. Deal with it.


The word for authority is exousia, which does not appear in this verse. Try looking at more than one source; authentein had about 50 different nuances of meaning in ancient Greek sources; there is no other instance in Scripture so translators must look to other sources to determine what the words mean, and which of the many senses Paul meant.


You really aren't paying attention. I stated, "It's not a parallel when it only appears in one of the two passages." In geometry, a single line is not a parallel. It needs something else with which to be parallel... or not.


My conclusion is in direct contradiction to yours.


My conclusion is drawn from a variety of sources. As to "proving", I can only provide information. Whether it convinces you is not my concern.


Clearly you don't know what circular reasoning is. Instead of making ignorant comments, go and do your homework... and while you're at it, learn the proper usage of "your" and "you're".

My, My your woman's pride is really showing. Not something to be proud of if you are a Christian. And your tongue is beginning to spit venom... why? Just because I don't agree with your conclusions.

I will say this however, I have been a student of the Koine Greek for thirty years and you presume to teach me from sort of Google search. Laughable. As to your knowledge of this word, let's take a look at other translations: "have dominion over" (ASV), "have authority over" (RSV, NIV), "exercise authority over" (Nestle Greek Interlinear).

We agree, your conclusions are in direct contradiction as to what the Bible teaches.

 

[awelight]

Christ is not less than God. The order given in 1 Corinthians 11 is not God-Christ-man-woman. Men and women are equal before God, and equal in Christ (Galatians 3:28). The "order" is given for marriage, not relationships in general. I have no problem with the idea that man was formed first, but I don't accept the idea that Adam's creation prior to Eve's grants males any primacy over females, for in the image of God He created them.

You are correct, Jesus Christ is NOT LESS than God. However, Jesus Christ is in subjection to His Father, the First Person of the God-Head. Christ does nothing outside of what His Father has decreed. Now are in Eternity. Likewise, the Third Person of the God-Head (Holy Spirit), does only the will of the Father and the Son. While all three persons are equal, the Son and Holy Spirit, willingly placed themselves in subjection to the Father.

Joh 5:30 I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 8:28-29 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are pleasing to him.
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jesus Christ gave unto us the perfect demonstration of what it means to be in subjection to his Father. It is in this same way, that a Christian woman (not women in general), is to be in subjection to the husband. Her desire to be in subjection is motivated by a strong and loving heart to do his will and not her own. In this way, she becomes a "help mate" indeed. Being out of subjection is the results of sin and the sinful flesh. It is a beautiful thing, when a woman chooses to place herself in subjection to a man that is not her husband but a fellow brother in Christ.

That last comment I don't suppose you would understand. It is not a commandment of the Lord but is the proper attitude before God. Since she would do this freely, it is that, that makes it beautiful.

 

[Scribe]

This really becomes tiresome. What is your point exactly? So these two epistles include similar subject matter as it relates to a woman being in subjection and her personal appearance. How does this change anything about the literal interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:11&12 and 1 Cor. 14:34&35? They say what they say. The language is plain and needs no interpretation.

Give something from Scripture that refutes the literal understanding. Your attempts are to force your understanding on the Scripture. I except the literal without trying to force some kind of other interpretation.

A woman is to learn in silence, that is what it says....period. Would you have this to mean in her home and/or in general public? Are is it in the assembly meeting? I will not have a woman to teach, is what it says.....thus the same questions must be asked....teach where?

Please try to keep the conversation on point and quit trying to cloud the issue. Nothing Peter had to say, alters what Paul was teaching. Nor does Peter's statements, alter the above questions, as to properly discerning where.

The goal of proper interpretation is to discover authorial intent. If Paul were here right now and we could ask him what did you mean by "I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man" what would his response be?

You think his response would be "I was say that a woman should not teach in the church because if she does she is usurping authority over a man"

I think he would say " I meant the same thing that Peter was talking about, the wife should not presume to teach the husband usurping her role in the marriage relationship but should be in subjection.

You think that Paul taught that the women should be in subjection to any man in the church. I think he was talking about her own husband.

We can find out who was right when that which is perfect is come. However you cannot say I did not present scriptures to support my interpretation as I most certainly did and I believe my hermeneutic is superior to your "pulpit teaching" theory.


As to 1 Cor 14 it is altogether another context. That of the women asking questions in a disorderly manner and they were to stop this in the church at Corinth and ask their husbands at home. The quotes about the Law is certainly not Paul telling the Corinthian church to follow the Mosaic Law, and there is no such law in the OT anyway. And we know that women prayed and prophesied in meetings since he mentions that as well when referring to head coverings of which the churches had no such custom in regards to the head covering but did indeed pray and prophesy out loud in the assembly.

I am studying Gordon Fees 900 page commentary on 1 Corinthians. I may revisit this subject after I read it 3 times. I have some ideas about what Paul probably mean in 1 Cor 14 but I am looking forward to reading what Fee has to say about it.

 

[awelight]

You claimed that they were "absolute parallels". They plainly are not. Deal with it.


The word for authority is exousia, which does not appear in this verse. Try looking at more than one source; authentein had about 50 different nuances of meaning in ancient Greek sources; there is no other instance in Scripture so translators must look to other sources to determine what the words mean, and which of the many senses Paul meant.


You really aren't paying attention. I stated, "It's not a parallel when it only appears in one of the two passages." In geometry, a single line is not a parallel. It needs something else with which to be parallel... or not.


My conclusion is in direct contradiction to yours.


My conclusion is drawn from a variety of sources. As to "proving", I can only provide information. Whether it convinces you is not my concern.


Clearly you don't know what circular reasoning is. Instead of making ignorant comments, go and do your homework... and while you're at it, learn the proper usage of "your" and "you're".

This statement,

"My conclusion is drawn from a variety of sources. As to "proving", I can only provide information..."

Is not a good thing.

 

[awelight]

The goal of proper interpretation is to discover authorial intent. If Paul were here right now and we could ask him what did you mean by "I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man" what would his response be?

You think his response would be "I was say that a woman should not teach in the church because if she does she is usurping authority over a man"

I think he would say " I meant the same thing that Peter was talking about, the wife should not presume to teach the husband usurping her role in the marriage relationship but should be in subjection.

You think that Paul taught that the women should be in subjection to any man in the church. I think he was talking about her own husband.

We can find out who was right when that which is perfect is come. However you cannot say I did not present scriptures to support my interpretation as I most certainly did and I believe my hermeneutic is superior to your "pulpit teaching" theory.


As to 1 Cor 14 it is altogether another context. That of the women asking questions in a disorderly manner and they were to stop this in the church at Corinth and ask their husbands at home. The quotes about the Law is certainly not Paul telling the Corinthian church to follow the Mosaic Law, and there is no such law in the OT anyway. And we know that women prayed and prophesied in meetings since he mentions that as well when referring to head coverings of which the churches had no such custom in regards to the head covering but did indeed pray and prophesy out loud in the assembly.

I am studying Gordon Fees 900 page commentary on 1 Corinthians. I may revisit this subject after I read it 3 times. I have some ideas about what Paul probably mean in 1 Cor 14 but I am looking forward to reading what Fee has to say about it.

Two points sir,

1) You did not answer my questions as posed to you. If your Theology is correct, you should be able to give answer.
2) Why do you need to read some commentary to come to an answer? You should do your own study and then see if some who have given us commentaries agree with your position. You look forward to reading "Fee", a 1930's Assembly of God preacher but you reject the thoughts of men like: John Gill, Albert Barnes and Arthur Pink, etc... Very Interesting.

 

[Dino246]

My, My your woman's pride is really showing. Not something to be proud of if you are a Christian. And your tongue is beginning to spit venom... why? Just because I don't agree with your conclusions.

What folly! Firstly, I have no "woman's pride" as I am not a woman. Secondly, there is no venom in my post.

I will say this however, I have been a student of the Koine Greek for thirty years and you presume to teach me from sort of Google search. Laughable. As to your knowledge of this word, let's take a look at other translations: "have dominion over" (ASV), "have authority over" (RSV, NIV), "exercise authority over" (Nestle Greek Interlinear).

Good for you, but you should know better than to flaunt your supposed knowledge or use it as a club. The Greek word for "authority" simply is not in the verse. Deal with it.

We agree, your conclusions are in direct contradiction as to what the Bible teaches.

"We"? I see you are as confused about the singularity of yourself as you are about the singularity of the woman in 1 Timothy.

 

[Scribe]

Two points sir,

1) You did not answer my questions as posed to you. If your Theology is correct, you should be able to give answer.
2) Why do you need to read some commentary to come to an answer? You should do your own study and then see if some who have given us commentaries agree with your position. You look forward to reading "Fee", a 1930's Assembly of God preacher but you reject the thoughts of men like: John Gill, Albert Barnes and Arthur Pink, etc... Very Interesting.

Well, we now know that you are no Greek Scholar. LOL. You would know better than to say that about Gordon Fee.

Reading commentaries is a great way to discover authorial intent. Gordon D Fee is a well respected theologian, textual critic expert and Greek scholar. Few have achieved his level of scholarly accomplishments. You are not well read if you think he was a 1930s preacher. I read all sorts of authors including the ones you mentioned. I do not agree with everything anyone writes. There will be interpretations I don't agree with and those that I do. We are on a journey to discover authorial intent and some of the best make mistakes along the way.
I do not think it is wise to ignore the advances in modern discoveries that older writers were not privy to. Gordon Fee has discovered things that those writers were not aware of and they would agree with him if they were here.
Keep reading and never let anyone criticize you for which authors you are reading.
Your comments about Gordon Fee and questioning my wisdom for reading him has exposed you as an amateur.
But it is ok, you will learn as you keep studying. I would suggest an online Bible college if you are really interested in going deep in the Word. There is so much to learn in a well structured study plan. It will help you discover what the questions are as well as the answers.

 

[Dino246]

That last comment I don't suppose you would understand.

And you say I spit venom? Look in the mirror, dude.

 

[awelight]

What folly! Firstly, I have no "woman's pride" as I am not a woman. Secondly, there is no venom in my post.


Good for you, but you should know better than to flaunt your supposed knowledge or use it as a club. The Greek word for "authority" simply is not in the verse. Deal with it.


"We"? I see you are as confused about the singularity of yourself as you are about the singularity of the woman in 1 Timothy.

These comments in light of your own are meaningless. Nice to see your Greek knowledge is soooo gooood, that you know better than even I or the Bible translators. Laughable again.

 

[awelight]

Well, we now know that you are no Greek Scholar. LOL. You would know better than to say that about Gordon Fee.

Reading commentaries is a great way to discover authorial intent. Gordon D Fee is a well respected theologian, textual critic expert and Greek scholar. Few have achieved his level of scholarly accomplishments. You are not well read if you think he was a 1930s preacher. I read all sorts of authors including the ones you mentioned. I do not agree with everything anyone writes. There will be interpretations I don't agree with and those that I do. We are on a journey to discover authorial intent and some of the best make mistakes along the way.
I do not think it is wise to ignore the advances in modern discoveries that older writers were not privy to. Gordon Fee has discovered things that those writers were not aware of and they would agree with him if they were here.
Keep reading and never let anyone criticize you for which authors you are reading.
Your comments about Gordon Fee and questioning my wisdom for reading him has exposed you as an amateur.
But it is ok, you will learn as you keep studying. I would suggest an online Bible college if you are really interested in going deep in the Word. There is so much to learn in a well structured study plan. It will help you discover what the questions are as well as the answers.[/QUOTE


I am an amateur because I don't agree with Gordon Fee, give me a break! I have been studying the Scriptures for about as long as you have been alive and am nearly as old as Gordon Fee.

Gordon Fee, born may 23, 1934 - an American-Canadian - Preached at Assembly of God churches in Washington state. Is presently Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Is this not the Gordon Fee you are talking about?

Your still avoiding the questions put to you.

 

[awelight]

And you say I spit venom? Look in the mirror, dude.

My apologize for thinking you were a woman. Beyond that this conversation has become fruitless.

 

[Dino246]

My apologize for thinking you were a woman.

Apology accepted.

 

[HillsboroMom]

So if you're going to insist that we take the Bible literally, and "the husband of one wife" must be literal, then single men cannot be pastors, either.

You would deny Jesus a position of pastor at your church.

And that is fine, if you want.

Any church I attend would not deny the position of pastor to Jesus.

Nor would it deny that position to any woman which Jesus has called in whatever way Jesus has called him or her.

If you want to belong to a church governed by man's laws over God's, that is your choice.

As for me and my house, we shall worship the LORD.

 

[Scribe]

Reading commentaries is a great way to discover authorial intent. Gordon D Fee is a well respected theologian, textual critic expert and Greek scholar. Few have achieved his level of scholarly accomplishments. You are not well read if you think he was a 1930s preacher. I read all sorts of authors including the ones you mentioned. I do not agree with everything anyone writes. There will be interpretations I don't agree with and those that I do. We are on a journey to discover authorial intent and some of the best make mistakes along the way.
I do not think it is wise to ignore the advances in modern discoveries that older writers were not privy to. Gordon Fee has discovered things that those writers were not aware of and they would agree with him if they were here.
Keep reading and never let anyone criticize you for which authors you are reading.
Your comments about Gordon Fee and questioning my wisdom for reading him has exposed you as an amateur.
But it is ok, you will learn as you keep studying. I would suggest an online Bible college if you are really interested in going deep in the Word. There is so much to learn in a well structured study plan. It will help you discover what the questions are as well as the answers.

I am an amateur because I don't agree with Gordon Fee, give me a break! I have been studying the Scriptures for about as long as you have been alive and am nearly as old as Gordon Fee.

Gordon Fee, born may 23, 1934 - an American-Canadian - Preached at Assembly of God churches in Washington state. Is presently Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Is this not the Gordon Fee you are talking about?

Your still avoiding the questions put to you.

Concerning Gordon Fee.
He was one of the translators on the committee for the NIV translation.
His contribution to pneumatology and textural criticism far exceeds the authors you mentioned.

In the 1990s, he succeeded F.F. Bruce to become the editor of the notable evangelical commentary series, the New International Commentary on the New Testament .

His books are used in many "non Pentecostal" bible colleges because they are excellent for educating the bible student whether they agree on Fees interpretation of every verse or not. All kinds of denominational seminaries use his books.

He was a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois and for several years at Vanguard University of Southern California, Fee taught at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, from the Fall of 1974 until 1986. He then moved to Regent College where he is now professor emeritus.

Fee is considered a leading expert in pneumatology and textual criticism of the New Testament.[4]

He is also the author of books on biblical exegesis, including the popular introductory work How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (co-authored with Douglas Stuart), the "sequel," How to Read the Bible, Book by Book, How to Choose a Translation for all its Worth (co-authored with Mark L. Strauss) and a major commentary on 1 Corinthians as well as numerous other commentaries on various books in the New Testament. In the 1990s, he succeeded F.F. Bruce to become the editor of the notable evangelical commentary series, the New International Commentary on the New Testament of which his commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians are a part.

Fee is a member of the CBT (Committee on Bible Translation) that translated the New International Version (NIV) and its revision, the Today's New International Version (TNIV).[4] He also serves on the advisory board of the International Institute for Christian Studies.[5]

He discovered that Codex Sinaiticus in Gospel of John 1:1-8:38 and in some other parts of this Gospel does not represent the Alexandrian text-type but the Western text-type.[6] ( a Pentecostal preacher of the 1930s? LOL)

He served on the same Committee with Bill Mounce.

I am sorry if the word amateur offends you but I find it difficult to comprehend how someone can say they have been studying Koine Greek for years and not know both Bill Mounce and Gordon Fee. Therefore I suspect your knowledge of Greek.

Why does all this matter? It means that you have much to learn in discovering the possible authorial intent of the passages that we are discussing and should probably take a more humble approach. You should consider reading Fee's commentary. And also others scholars who have presented something different than your old traditional eisegesis forcing Paul to be talking about "pulpits" when pulpits did not exist when he wrote this.

As to interpretation of 1 Tim and 1 Cor about being in silence. 1 Tim is talking about the attitude of the wife toward the husband and 1 Cor 14 is talking about interupting with questions. But I am still studying 1 Cor 14 so I will get back to you on what I discover.

If 1 Tim 2, I believe it means to not be a loud contentious wife that demands her own way. This is not a meek and quiet spirit. Not arguing. Not having the last word. Learn what the Lord would say and stop trying to take over the conversation. Not a ban on speaking in church since we know they did speak. They prophesied, they prayed, they spoke in tongues, there is no record of who taught so we can only assume people like Priscila did teach. Anyone capable of teaching Apollos about Jesus more perfectly would be a good woman to hear teach the scriptures.

There may also be some local application for certain specific women in the church of Ephesus that might have been causing issues that submitting to their husbands leadership would resolve. Whether they were caught up in some false teaching that was spreading and they had been taken captive by it is a guess but it might be something like this. I do not believe Paul intended to ban all women from teaching the bible when men are present and that it is a poor interpretation that clashes with the whole tenor of the New Testament and does not even jell with the OT when we see women like Huldah with as much authority as Jeremiah and was considered to have God's word on the subject.

That Paul would be teaching more restriction on women than the OT had put on them should be an obvious sign that one is misunderstanding.

So keep reading and stay open. May the light of the Holy Spirit authorial intent shine in your heart.

 

[Scribe]

Apology accepted.

It was the red lipstick.

 

[awelight]

Concerning Gordon Fee.
He was one of the translators on the committee for the NIV translation.
His contribution to pneumatology and textural criticism far exceeds the authors you mentioned.

In the 1990s, he succeeded F.F. Bruce to become the editor of the notable evangelical commentary series, the New International Commentary on the New Testament .

His books are used in many "non Pentecostal" bible colleges because they are excellent for educating the bible student whether they agree on Fees interpretation of every verse or not. All kinds of denominational seminaries use his books.

He was a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois and for several years at Vanguard University of Southern California, Fee taught at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, from the Fall of 1974 until 1986. He then moved to Regent College where he is now professor emeritus.

Fee is considered a leading expert in pneumatology and textual criticism of the New Testament.[4]

He is also the author of books on biblical exegesis, including the popular introductory work How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (co-authored with Douglas Stuart), the "sequel," How to Read the Bible, Book by Book, How to Choose a Translation for all its Worth (co-authored with Mark L. Strauss) and a major commentary on 1 Corinthians as well as numerous other commentaries on various books in the New Testament. In the 1990s, he succeeded F.F. Bruce to become the editor of the notable evangelical commentary series, the New International Commentary on the New Testament of which his commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians are a part.

Fee is a member of the CBT (Committee on Bible Translation) that translated the New International Version (NIV) and its revision, the Today's New International Version (TNIV).[4] He also serves on the advisory board of the International Institute for Christian Studies.[5]

He discovered that Codex Sinaiticus in Gospel of John 1:1-8:38 and in some other parts of this Gospel does not represent the Alexandrian text-type but the Western text-type.[6] ( a Pentecostal preacher of the 1930s? LOL)

He served on the same Committee with Bill Mounce.

I am sorry if the word amateur offends you but I find it difficult to comprehend how someone can say they have been studying Koine Greek for years and not know both Bill Mounce and Gordon Fee. Therefore I suspect your knowledge of Greek.

Why does all this matter? It means that you have much to learn in discovering the possible authorial intent of the passages that we are discussing and should probably take a more humble approach. You should consider reading Fee's commentary. And also others scholars who have presented something different than your old traditional eisegesis forcing Paul to be talking about "pulpits" when pulpits did not exist when he wrote this.

As to interpretation of 1 Tim and 1 Cor about being in silence. 1 Tim is talking about the attitude of the wife toward the husband and 1 Cor 14 is talking about interupting with questions. But I am still studying 1 Cor 14 so I will get back to you on what I discover.

If 1 Tim 2, I believe it means to not be a loud contentious wife that demands her own way. This is not a meek and quiet spirit. Not arguing. Not having the last word. Learn what the Lord would say and stop trying to take over the conversation. Not a ban on speaking in church since we know they did speak. They prophesied, they prayed, they spoke in tongues, there is no record of who taught so we can only assume people like Priscila did teach. Anyone capable of teaching Apollos about Jesus more perfectly would be a good woman to hear teach the scriptures.

There may also be some local application for certain specific women in the church of Ephesus that might have been causing issues that submitting to their husbands leadership would resolve. Whether they were caught up in some false teaching that was spreading and they had been taken captive by it is a guess but it might be something like this. I do not believe Paul intended to ban all women from teaching the bible when men are present and that it is a poor interpretation that clashes with the whole tenor of the New Testament and does not even jell with the OT when we see women like Huldah with as much authority as Jeremiah and was considered to have God's word on the subject.

That Paul would be teaching more restriction on women than the OT had put on them should be an obvious sign that one is misunderstanding.

So keep reading and stay open. May the light of the Holy Spirit authorial intent shine in your heart.

Your last comment should be applicable to you as well. I will not continue this conversation further with you for it is fruitless. How ever I am posting a final general thought to those who oppose the proper teaching of these Scriptures. See if they apply to you as a test of your faith.

 

[Dino246]

How ever I am posting a final general thought to those who oppose the proper teaching of these Scriptures. See if they apply to you as a test of your faith.

Here you reveal your real intent: you aren't here to discuss your views; you're here to anathematize people who don't agree with your interpretation of these Scriptures. Soon enough you will start questioning their salvation. Or, as you have done with Scribe and with me, you will claim that further discussion is "fruitless". Well, it's your choice to bow out, but you join a raft full of people whose simplistic arguments have been duly swatted aside, and, having nothing more substantial to offer, descend to insults.

 

[awelight]

I apologize to all I have posted to and those who may have been reading along. Being personally attacked by some, caused me to react out of the energy of the flesh; rather than lifting up Christ, I attempted to lift up myself. This serves not my Lord and Savior.

To those who reject the proper teaching, that a woman should have her glory (long hair), veiled (1 Cor. 11:2-16), in the assembly meeting and remain silent, (1 Cor. 14:34). and are not permitted to teach, (1 Tim. 2:12), thus be a pastor, the following also can be concluded about their Theological beliefs:

1) They do not believe that the special gifts of the Spirit have temporarily ceased until the end days are present.
2) They do not believe that Salvation is ALL of GOD. It is by GRACE alone and not Grace + Faith. God's Grace ensures faith for those who are in the Eternal Covenant, (Heb. 13:20,21; Jude v.1; Eph. 2:8).
3) They do not believe in the spiritually depraved nature of man subsequent to the fall of Adam.
4) They are ARMINIAN to the CORE, in as much as they believe in "Free-Will" to the extent, that it is man's will over God's will. Thus, they deny Election and it's true extent, (Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:4).
5) They deny that the SHEEP of John chapter 10 are equal to the ELECT of God. That Sheep/Elect comprise the whole of Salvation and not one less are one more will be saved. (John 6:39,65; 10:29; 17:2)
6) They deny Christ's Particular Redemption. They believe that Christ died for everyone and not just the Elect. Thus, they DEVALUE the efficacy of His redemptive work and in so doing DEVALUE Christ Himself. Jesus Christ died ONLY for the SHEEP, (John 10:11,14-15); therefore, the ELECT in the Eternal Covenant, (Mat. 20:28; 22:14; Mk. 14:24; Rom.5:15; 8:14; Heb. 9:28), and not all.
7) They deny the IMPECCABILITY of Christ and believe He was Peccable. He could have sinned but did not because it is important to them that Christ be like them in everyway. But Scripture says that Christ was born Holy, (Lk. 1:35), in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, (Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7). Not in sinful flesh. Having no human father separated Him from the fall of Adam and the sin nature. To believe in the Peccability of Christ, is to not know Him at all. His Divine nature could not co-inhabit with a sin nature.

Years ago, when my brother's wife was still alive, her son was over visiting. He was a Preacher at a local Charismatic church in East Texas. My wife engaged him in a Biblical conversation, which led to her asking him: "Why do you not teach these Doctrinal things in your Church"? This question, was in response to him saying, he knew of these Doctrines. He replied: "I cannot. The people of the church would not understand these things, nor would they stand for it.". How very, very sad. Shortly thereafter, he was taken out of this world.

The Theology mentioned above, is of the same cloth as the Pharisees and Sadducees of our Lord's day. What is happening here? Why so much error? It can be summed up with this verse of Scripture:

John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

Salvation only works one way! The same as it did here:

Acts_13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Therefore, if one is Christ's Sheep, His sheep do not buck against the proper understanding of God's Word. They whole heartedly embrace it. Scripture teaches that we as believers, are to be in Subjection to our Lord, Jesus Christ. Just as He was in Subjection to His Father, we too are in Subjection to each other in Christ. No Christian has a problem with being in Subjection to another. Only the sin nature hates the concept of being in Subjection to someone or something.

 

[awelight]

Here you reveal your real intent: you aren't here to discuss your views; you're here to anathematize people who don't agree with your interpretation of these Scriptures. Soon enough you will start questioning their salvation. Or, as you have done with Scribe and with me, you will claim that further discussion is "fruitless". Well, it's your choice to bow out, but you join a raft full of people whose simplistic arguments have been duly swatted aside, and, having nothing more substantial to offer, descend to insults.

No... that is not my intent. But it is to vigorously defend the Truth of God's Word. Anathematizing people is not my place... that is the sole authority of God. The general post, now posted, tests whether ones faith is genuine. I cannot divorce myself from these great Biblical principles, just for the sake of discussion. We are not discussing Biology, Cosmetology or some other of man's sciences... we are discussing the Word of God. As such, one must maintain a proper witness for the cause of Christ.