what are your thoughts of Apostle Kathryn Krick

[CS1]

Here is the definitive argument to show that women do not share in such roles as preachers or elders or apostles.

Speaking to women, Paul asks:
36Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The answer to these rhetorical questions is definitively NO! The word of God did not come only to the woman nor was it preached only to the woman. Women who assume such positions do so not because of what scripture teaches, but in spite of it.

I would ask you to post the full chapter of 1cor 14 Because it seems there is much you did not cover contextually with three verses.

 

[presidente]

Here is the definitive argument to show that women do not share in such roles as preachers or elders or apostles.

Speaking to women, Paul asks:
36Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The answer to these rhetorical questions is definitively NO! The word of God did not come only to the woman nor was it preached only to the woman. Women who assume such positions do so not because of what scripture teaches, but in spite of it.

I find your interpretation to be inconsistent with the wording of the passage.

I Corinthians 14

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Look at verses 34-25. This is in the third person..."your women...unto them....they.....their husbands...women....." Verse 36 switches back to 'you', which seems to refer to the whole congregation all throughout the book, the readers, that are saluted in chapter 1. The book is not addressed just to women.

So we can conclude that in verse 36 Paul is addressing the 'church of God which is at Corinth' and anyone else he addressed in chapter 1. So what is he talking about? I started with verse 26, where Paul actually starts giving commands-- "Let all things be done unto edifying." I go with that instead of the idea that he meant "All things are done unto edifying" because this passage is bringing correction.

So if we look Paul mentions 'commandments of the Lord' in verse 37. So let's look at what is taught and commanded here. 'Every one of you' have a psalm, teaching, tongue, revelation, interpretation. He added the command-- Let all things be done unto edifying. Then the church must allow someone to speak in tongues to do so. If there is no interpreter, he must be silent in the church. The church needs to allow the interpretation. The church is commanded to let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge. A prophet is required to hold his peace if another sitting by receives a revelation for ye may all prophesy one by one.... Then there is a command for women.

The command for women shows up at different places in the chapter in different manuscripts. Since chapter 11 speaks of women prophesying, and prophesying edifies the church/assembly, then many interpreters believe women were allowed to prophecy. Women prophesying is specifically mentioned in the prophecy of Joel 2 which Peter quotes in Acts 2 about the last days. Philip had four daughters who prophesied.

This leads many commentators and interpreters to think that Paul's instructions to women was about a specific problem related to their talking. Origen later in history would complain about some women talking during the teaching. I have heard speculation that men and women sat on different sides of the room and the wives were asking questions about doctrine to their husbands across the room (though I have also heard or read there is not evidence that synagogues divided men and women in the seating during this time period), and I have read the interpretation from a Greek scholar along the lines of women doing a 'Socratic dialogue' on the prophets after their prophets, maybe during the time of 'judging prophecies.'

Paul seems to make an argument appealing to universal church practices with such things as 'as in all the churches of the saints' and his questions about 'What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?' Jerusalem had prophets. They went to Antioch. Other churches had prophets. The word had not originated with Corinth. Isaiah said the Law of the Lord would go forth from Zion, and the church had started in Jerusalem and the word had spread from there. So why would the Corinthians deviate from the practices of the church out from whom the word had come or from that of other churches who had received the word? Why would the prophets prophesy in a different manner, or the way the regular believers in the congregation sang, taught, shared revelations, etc.? And if this is the location for the verse about women, why would the church allow the disorder that was going on when considering how other churches operated. In chapter 1, the epistle is also addressed to 'that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord'.

Then we get verse 37, one of the verses where Paul emphases the importance of what he writes as being from God. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

So if someone thinks he is a gifted speaker in tongues or interpreter or sharer of revelations, then he should do it in church 'unto edifying. And the prophets should let their prophecies be weighed after 'two or three' (whether Paul means prophets or utterances or whatever.) He should hold his peace when another receives a revelation. This is preemptive correction to those who wanted to do church activities in a way contrary to this.

These commands are quite different from what many people think of church if they are influenced by either traditional liturgy or Protestant preacher-centered sermons. There is no command here for one big sermon from anyone. Paul does not even mention the elder or bishop role, or mention the word 'pastor' in this passage-- the one long passage that addresses this aspect of church meetings in the whole New Testament aside from chapter 11 which tells us how not to have the Lord's Supper. Elders are associated with teaching, and they, along with others in the congregation, are allowed to teach according to verse 26.

As far as the issue of women pastors are concerned, there is plenty to discuss, but I do not think you can legitimately get the point you want out of that particular verse.

 

[oldhermit]

I would ask you to post the full chapter of 1cor 14 Because it seems there is much you did not cover contextually with three verses.

Well, if you would like to discuss the context of that text perhaps we need to do so on a separate thread. What do you believe to be the context of that segment of chapter 14?

 

[justbyfaith]

It is wiser to take each case individually to study and see which, if either, translation is right when there is a discrepancy.

By what criteria do you make that judgment since the original manuscripts are lost to us?

 

[SophieT]

See, you don't know what you are talking about here. The NAR is the C. Peter Wagner movement, or a movement with other leaders associated closely to his ideas. He had this IMO fuzzy idea about apostles as leaders of denominations and fellowships of churches, even in one of his 70's books. He writes a book about churches that have 'apostles'. Some churches use the title as something like a bishop or archbishop in other denominations or traditional ecclesiology. Then people start wanting him, an academic, to lead a movement. I think they, and maybe eventually he, though he was an apostle.

A man I knew who said he met Wagner. He said he went to his HQ and said something to a secretary and ended up going into the big office and meeting Wagoner. He mentioned an 'apostle' Spain. Wagner started talking about how there was no apostle in Spain--- meaning they didn't have someone registered in their network in Spain, as if being in their network had something to do with it. The apostle this man was talking to was a church planter. This man was into planting New Testament style churches. He was surprised that Wagner seemed to think like all the apostles were on the list. He said they had an apostle in Spain. He said he knew the man. Apparently the man hadn't planted any churches based on this individual's knowledge, and he said the man had tried to take over a church.

You are thinking of Bethel. Do any of the Bethel leaders think of themselves as part of the 'New Apostolic Reformation', either the organization or the movement? The 'grave sucking' thing is something Bill Johnson addressed. He knows they get some people who are unusual there at church. He said he did not have a problem with being at a gravesite and praying that the same anointing that rested upon the person (or that God use you like that person or whatever words he used) rested on you, but did not believe in soaking up the power from the person at the grave. You could look up the interview if you want specifics. I have seen a photo of someone laying on a grave. That might have been someone who went to that Bethel church there in Redding, or it might not.

I wasn't there when the term was coined, but given that there are young people going to Bethel, 'grave sucking' might have originated as a kind of almost half-joking slang, like other terms that are used like being 'slimed' by a demon if you feel icky about a demonic presence or come under attack (which sounds to me like a reference to Ghost Busters popular culture.) I have heard 'read my mail' for cases where someone gives you an incredibly specific prophecy, and people say, "He read my mail." Just like you might hear 'pray through' as religious language in some church, church people come up with jargon. Some of it might be a little comical, like the 'Charismatic two step' to describe some people in the pews.

It is unfair to attribute something going on at Bethel to the churches and people in the NAR group. There can be some overlap, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the Bethel people even leadership held to an NAR idea of apostleship instead of a Biblical missiology view based on Matthew 10, parallel passages in the synoptics, and Acts 13-14 like many people do in the house church movement, part of the greather Plymouth Brethren--Little Flock-- Watchman Nee type, some in the Assemblies of God, some of the church planting movement Baptists with some relationship to the IMB, and some of the missionaries in the 10-40 window. Some NAR people may even hold to that.

I mentioned Michael Brown's article on who is in the NAR and other things along those lines. https://www.christianpost.com/voice/dispelling-myths-new-apostolic-reformation-michael-brown.html

Here is a radio show and/or podcast on it:
https://www.truthnetwork.com/show/line-of-fire-dr-michael-brown/5052/

If you ask me not to comment until I have seen the video ___when I made it clear I was not commenting on the video___, then I am going to ask you not to comment on a topic until you know what you are talking about.

telling someone they do not know what they are talking about is the defense people make when they think they know more

as it is, why did you introduce NAR? that is not even what the op is concerned with

I DID NOT ask you to view the video before commenting on it. YOU stated you had not watched it so I wondered why you thought you could evidence an opinion when by your own admission you did not bother to watch...again, I don't know if you watched it or not...I am not convinced of the need to read your posts....

you are going on and on and on about what you believe are related subjects. a few years back, in this forum, there were extensive threads concerning NAR and their prophets and IHOP. you have provided little to convince you have better information

You are thinking of Bethel.

Bethel is cutting edge NAR even though Johnson's father was Pentecostal. I know about the history...I know about the Todd Bentley fiasco, there occultic sorties into telling people's futures and various other harmful practices

I am not responding further to discussions about NAR here...be glad to reply if you start an appropriate thread dealing with the subject matter there

 

[SophieT]

You disagreed in a disagreeable way.

funny

I find you particularly undercutting and demanding

and whiney. please go talk to someone else you find more agreeable

 

[presidente]

By what criteria do you make that judgment since the original manuscripts are lost to us?

The manuscripts that exist and books about them can be studied. I suppose it is easy if one accepts the presupposition that the KJV miraculously got it right. But there is the problem of why would one believe this is the case? I never heard God tell me that. Has anyone else ever heard God say that? I don't see where anyone in the Bible wrote that they heard that.

 

[presidente]

Well, if you would like to discuss the context of that text perhaps we need to do so on a separate thread. What do you believe to be the context of that segment of chapter 14?

I started a thread.

 

[presidente]

funny

I find you particularly undercutting and demanding

and whiney. please go talk to someone else you find more agreeable

I find you that way, too. I share my opinions like a man on a discussion forum. It's predominantly male, and we do not mind bumping elbows with other men--i.e. not afraid to disagree. You're being rude and insulting, and I called you out for it. And I know this is not the only time it has happened on the forum, because I see you bickering on here from time to time.

Why don't you apologize, to me, and whenever it happens? If you can point out something I did wrong, I will apologize also.

 

[presidente]

telling someone they do not know what they are talking about is the defense people make when they think they know more

as it is, why did you introduce NAR? that is not even what the op is concerned with

People reply to stuff in threads. I was replying to your stuff, too. Please go back and reread before asking such questions. You responded to a post in which I mentioned NAR-- which I think someone else brought up if not you-- and you mentioned grave sucking in response. I posted about how you shouldn't generalize grave sucking to NAR and a leader of the church it originated from did not agree with it.

I DID NOT ask you to view the video before commenting on it. YOU stated you had not watched it so I wondered why you thought you could evidence an opinion when by your own admission you did not bother to watch...again, I don't know if you watched it or not...I am not convinced of the need to read your posts....

I commented on an idea in a post as to whether God could choose one person to be a key to revival... or something along those lines, and made it clear I was not posting on the video. How you can squeeze a quarrel out of that amazes me, even after reading the thread? Where is the justification for strife, getting on anyone's case or acting ugly? I am not seeing it, and I do not see why any reasonable, sane, human being would get bent out of shape over such a thing.

you are going on and on and on about what you believe are related subjects.

That seems to bother you. If you don't like a post, you don't have to read it. You don't have to find someone to try to pester and annoy in these threads. Just discuss the topic like most other posters, sticking to the topic, acting mature, thinking about it, looking up verses, praying about it, etc.

a few years back, in this forum, there were extensive threads concerning NAR and their prophets and IHOP. you have provided little to convince you have better information

I haven't read every thread. I suspect I know more about either topic than you do, though. Judging from the style of your responses, I think I am older than you, maybe, and I also have spent more time around IHOP people when it first started and later and a little around NAR people.


Bethel is cutting edge NAR even though Johnson's father was Pentecostal. I know about the history...I know about the Todd Bentley fiasco, there occultic sorties into telling people's futures and various other harmful practices

I am not responding further to discussions about NAR here...be glad to reply if you start an appropriate thread dealing with the subject matter there[/QUOTE]

 

[justbyfaith]

The manuscripts that exist and books about them can be studied. I suppose it is easy if one accepts the presupposition that the KJV miraculously got it right. But there is the problem of why would one believe this is the case? I never heard God tell me that. Has anyone else ever heard God say that? I don't see where anyone in the Bible wrote that they heard that.

I just know my own testimony....that I started my Christian life with the kjv and when someone suggested I try a modern translation, I did...and my walk with Christ went downhill from there. When I returned to the kjv, things started looking up again.

The Bible says that we overcome the devil by the word of our testimony among other things.

I believe that there is malnourishment in some of the modern translations which are watered down impaho.

 

[presidente]

@SophieT

Bethel is cutting edge NAR even though Johnson's father was Pentecostal. I know about the history...I know about the Todd Bentley fiasco, there occultic sorties into telling people's futures and various other harmful practices

I suppose if someone doesn't call himself Baptist you can call him one, and he might get annoyed. I haven't heard Bill Johnson thinks of himself as NAR or not. If he doesn't or isn't a part of the NAR organization, groups that were close to Wagner, etc., it doesn't really make sense.

Telling other people's futures is all throughout the Old Testament and some in the New Testament. I know Todd Bentley had a moral issue and I heard a bit of his crusade where he spoke a lot about himself and put his hands on people and stuff. In the parts I saw, I don't think I heard a lot about Jesus.

I think you are calling the signs and wonders movement, the prophetic movement, parts of what Wagner called the 'third wave' movement, and some other movements 'NAR'. And all those groups and movements aren't monolithic on some of these things and have some different ideas and practices. There are a lot of independent churches and loose affiliations of churches there, and you seem to be putting them into one little tight box. A lot of these groups aren't the post mil dominionists with Wagner's ideas. He thought apostles were supposed to take over or be in charge of churches like another level of hierarchy. If they are affiliated with Wagner's NAR group then it makes sense to call them NAR. If they call themselves NAR and call their pastors 'apostle', it makes more sense to call them NAR.

 

[presidente]

I just know my own testimony....that I started my Christian life with the kjv and when someone suggested I try a modern translation, I did...and my walk with Christ went downhill from there. When I returned to the kjv, things started looking up again.

The Bible says that we overcome the devil by the word of our testimony among other things.

I believe that there is malnourishment in some of the modern translations which are watered down impaho.

Did you use the Living Bible, NLTV, NIV, The Message, or The Passion translation?

Did you try the NKJV or the ESV for example?

I get more out of the formal equivalence, I think, than the easy-reader. They want copyrights, too, and the good translations have been used up so some of the newer translations use odd wording and get a little more away from the meaning of the text to have unique wording-- my theory, but it makes sense considering standards for plaigairism. For example, no more than five words or set phrases alike.

 

[oldhermit]

I started a thread.

Apparently, it has not yet posted.

 

[justbyfaith]

Did you use the Living Bible, NLTV, NIV, The Message, or The Passion translation?
The NIV.

Did you try the NKJV or the ESV for example?

I get more out of the formal equivalence, I think, than the easy-reader. They want copyrights, too, and the good translations have been used up so some of the newer translations use odd wording and get a little more away from the meaning of the text to have unique wording-- my theory, but it makes sense considering standards for plaigairism. For example, no more than five words or set phrases alike.

However, I find that the NKJV also has its problems; as well as the ESV. They do not teach the doctrine of entire sanctification as powerfully as does the kjv.

 

[presidente]

Apparently, it has not yet posted.

It was hard to find for me, too. Hit control F and look up 'Must.'

Forget the title, but who must speak in church is the gist of it.

It is similar to my post to you here, but responding there is good to keep this on topic.

 

[presidente]

However, I find that the NKJV also has its problems; as well as the ESV. They do not teach the doctrine of entire sanctification as powerfully as does the kjv.

Where does the KJV teach that? And what do you mean by 'entire sanctification'-- a post conversion 'zap' or sanctifying body, soul, and spirit?

 

[oldhermit]

It was hard to find for me, too. Hit control F and look up 'Must.'

Forget the title, but who must speak in church is the gist of it.

It is similar to my post to you here, but responding there is good to keep this on topic.

I am on my tablet so, I'll have to find it some other way. Is is located on the BDF?

 

[oldhermit]

It was hard to find for me, too. Hit control F and look up 'Must.'

Forget the title, but who must speak in church is the gist of it.

It is similar to my post to you here, but responding there is good to keep this on topic.

Can you post a link?

 

[presidente]

Can you post a link?

Uh-oh. Either I or the whole forum is under post approval now. I posted it, thought I saw it. Didn't see it. Posted it again, and then saw that it was awaiting approval. So I don't know if I thought I saw it, but I think I posted it twice, or two posts almost the same. Hopefully mods will sort it out. Apologies for the error if a mod reads this.