Kay
Active 2009–2011
Tag Cloud
Craig & TL,
Here is an excerpt from Ware’s book “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance ” The link opens to pg18 were he is discussing prayer “to the Father through the Son.”
Craig@214,
Clearly, he is feeling intimidated. It appears that he is not sure enough of his position to venture far from home with it. Looks like it’s up to you to find agreeable “territory” – Christian Forums sounds like it may be a reasonable compromise if you wish to continue.
“But he has now said how busy he is for a while with too many meetings to attend and not enough time.
Another staff member has basically said the same thing- preaches compism from the pulpit, would love to discuss my questions, but not enough time.”
Craig,
I’ve noticed another common trait of comps – they always seem to be too busy to discuss this particular issue. Rather odd since it is so central in their beliefs. They apparently have time to do or discuss everything else except it.
My guess is that Cheryl would be pleased for Jareth to continue discussing this issue here. She welcomes respectful dialog here and the only time I’ve known her to close comments was when one became so large it would no longer open properly. Then she started a new post to continue the discussion. 🙂
Craig@200,
Have you taken your discussion private or abandoned it?
pinklight@65,
I think someone has asked those or similar. Can’t say I recall a direct answer for why giving someone food is deemed to “leading”…
Craig,
“Was Adam deceived? No, the interaction with the serpent happened entirely with Eve. Adam was a passive participant — he simply received the fruit from Eve and ate it. There is no indication that he believed what the serpent said about the fruit.”
Is he serious? Eating the fruit is not an indicator? Nooo – Because he always just eats whatever Eve hands him, no questions asked. Yeah, right!
Criag,
If you subscribe to the comment Feed you should be able to see several more comments, including mine, that were posted after your’s.
Mark,
Bear in mind that it is Cheryl’s blog – it looks rediculous for you to come here taking up space on it to criticize her without even having the courtesy to answer one question she asks you. I’m sorry, but that just isn’t right. If you had a blog, would you want commenters to do that to you?
Mark,
Why not just answer Cheryl’s question? It’s starting to appear that you are not doing it only to spite her in some way.
Mark,
I hope that when you time again, you will answer in more detail (@160). It would be very helpful to me if you could explain, step by step, the process you follow that reveals a distinction between them due to some component of the Creation account?
Because from where I’m standing, it appears that you are basing this doctrine on some un-named thing in the Creation account that allows you to see a difference between:
a.) head covering rooted in the Creation
and
b.) teaching and authenteining rooted in the Creation
– whereby one is rendered temporary and one is rendered permanent.
What is *it* in the Creation account that you are basing this upon?
“Distinguish between principle and practice in your hermeneutics and you will see again that in 1 Cor 11 there is a principle that is rooted in creation (the husband/man is the head of the wife/woman shown through the creational order) and then there is a cultural practice to implement this teaching (head covering).”
Mark,
Then how can the practice ever be UNimplemented since its very root is Creation? Has Creation changed? No? Then it must be permenantly valid.
Mark,
Pardon the typo – not ‘2’ Tim, but 1 Tim.2.
Traditional scholars say a) we can see a universal principle behind vv. 8-9, but v. 12 is a universal principle, and b) Paul supports v. 12 with evidence from Scripture, thereby indicating that it is a universal rule. However, 1 Cor. 11 shows that Paul can use Scripture even when arguing for a cultural custom, and he could have cited a scripture to support vv. 8-9, as well, without making them universal. The principle behind v. 12 may be a general one, just as it is for 5:9 or 6:1.
In 1 Tim. 6:1-2, Paul tells slaves to submit to their masters for the sake of the gospel. Paul’s advice is not a permanent approval of slavery, and in the same way, his policy for women may be a temporary need, not a permanent approval of authority restricted to males. Paul did not directly command slavery, but his policy was that slaves should submit to their masters. By doing this, Paul taught something less than God’s ideal in order to advance the gospel—which means that he might have done something similar for women.
After all, when Paul commands Christian slaves to serve their masters well, there is nothing in the text to indicate that Paul expects this situation to be a temporary one. Is there?
“Similarly in 1 Cor 11 he uses the creational order to highlight why he believes a women should cover her head and not disgrace her head. Same thing in Eph 5 about marriage. He is using the”
Mark,
Thanks for taking time to get back to me. How do you rectify the idea that Paul’s restriction in 2 Tim 2 is permanently valid because Paul supports it from Genesis with the fact that Paul used Genesis to argue for a cultural custom in 1 Cor. 11?
I mean, you do agree that women no longer need to cover their heads to show propriety, right?
Mark,
I do wish that you would have had time to answer my question @148:
Adam was formed first —but there is nothing in Genesis to say why it would give him (and males) exclusive authority in doctrine but not in civil government. Comps give no explanation why one applies but the other does not; in actuality they base their belief on 1 Tim. 2:12 rather than Genesis, and it is erroneous to say that Gen. 2 gives males authority specifically in matters of worship. Worship is never mentioned in Gen.2. What is your explanation for this?
I do hope you’ll get to it when you next have time for dialog.
Dave@151, Well, they were so good when you made them the first time I just had to reiterate!
Mark,
Is this a universal church normative? Or is it possible that this text is the exceptional one?
After all, if it was a universal rule of such great importance as comps assert, it certainly would be expected that Timothy would have been aware of this rule already.
Paul does not say that it is a “command of the Lord” but rather “I do not allow.”
Mark,
You quote Kostenberger: “Since, therefore, the term ‘didaskein’ is used absolutely in the NT for an activity that is viewed positively in and of itself, and since ‘oude’ coordinates terms that are either both viewed positively or negetively, ‘authentein’ should be seen as denoting an activity that is veiwed positively in and of itself as well.”
You don’t see that this is simply an assertion?
I believe that the passage tells us there was a certain situation that Paul was addressing and also that there are things in it normative for today. False teachers are not permitted, but they must be allowed to learn the truth. That in these passages Paul also says that “women will be saved through childbearing” and the universally acknowledged difficulty in interpreting these verses, again clearly reveals that we do not have complete understanding of the situation Paul is addressing. This is an obvious and undeniable indicator of an UNusual situation.
“I’m some what in agreement with you about interpretation. Thus a good proper solid exegesis is required. It is not simply good enough to say…’well that doesn’t apply ot us anymore’, nor is it exceptable to say that ‘everything literally applies’.”
Mark,
I think I understand what you are trying to say here…only it seems perhaps you used the word “exceptable” when you meant “acceptable.” Was that your intention?
“Thus something else must help us. Consider that ALL Paul’s teaching on these issues are grounded in creation. Therefore, there is something significant about it.”
I agree. Yes, and just what that significance IS, is the crux of the matter. Adam was formed first —but there is nothing in Genesis to say why it would give him (and males) exclusive authority in doctrine but not in civil government. Comps give no explanation why one applies but the other does not; in actuality they base their belief on 1 Tim. 2:12 rather than Genesis, and it is erroneous to say that Gen. 2 gives males authority specifically in matters of worship. Worship is never mentioned in Gen.2. What is your explanation for this?
Egals/mutualists see Paul simply using it as an example to explain that ignorance leads to deception. Just as he did in 2Cor 11:3-4: “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.”
Clearly, women can and do have authority over men (civil government, business, or public ed). Therefore, the significance cannot be understood as a “blanket” hierarchy. Since the rationale that comps use to support male authority based on Genesis 2 is not valid for civil authority, this inconsistency suggests that the entire rationale itself may not be valid. Coupled with Paul’s use of “ignorant, deceived Eve” elsewhere, that is not “slippery” hermeneutics.
The Comp claim that Paul’s restriction is permanently valid because he supports it from Genesis, also ignores the fact that women are in fact shown teaching scripture to men (Acts18:25), praying, prophesying and evangelizing. In all these ways we DO know that Paul is not making an absolute restriction on women teaching/authenteining. And as Dave pointed out if these were “postitive” things WHY would Paul be restricting them? As I’ve just stated above, women are clearly shown having authority and teaching positively. 🙂
*The onus is on you to show anyone ever “authenteining” anyone else is positive.* Where is a believer ever given the command “to authentein” another person?
You wrote: “Here is what he saids…“These example set forth the NT evidence that ‘oude’ joins terms that denote activities that are either both viewed positively or negetively by the writer or speaker. The implication of this observation for 1 Tim 2:12 is that there are only two acceptable ways of rendering that passage: (1) “i do not permit a woman to teach (error) or to domineer over a man,” or (2) “i do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man””
Thus the argument that Paul links the two terms to mean one idea is false. Thus, it cannot be translated, “i do not permit a woman to teach a man in a domineering way”. If one adopts this interpretation it goes against ALL the evidence.”
But, Mark, you already admit that it is positive and allowable for women to teach men at times and have authority at times. Therefore, by your own hermeneutics, then you, yourself, cannot choose number (2) which separates them.
Mark,
When is the last time you “greeted the brethren with a holy kiss?”
If not, then you must be headed down that “slippery slope” to a complete rejection of Biblical authority as well!
1Thessalonians 5:26 — “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.”
1 Peter 5:13-14 — “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ.”
The fact that the “holy kiss” is a command of two different apostles within the inspired New Testament Scriptures does not necessarily prescribe, however, that the expression or implementation of this command is forever frozen in a single form. In other words, what exactly is it that is really being commanded of disciples? Is it a literal placing of one’s lips upon the face or head of another disciple, or simply the visible, physical expression, in whatever form may be customary to one’s time and culture, of peace, affection, harmony and unity among brethren? The same question has been asked of the command by Jesus to wash the feet of others [John 13:14]. Must we literally wash the feet of our brothers and sisters in Christ, or was Jesus seeking to impress a deeper truth upon our hearts. The fact that many legalistic patternists seek to impose a literal fulfillment of certain commands and examples, but dismiss other commands and examples as “culturally irrelevant” to our modern times, smacks of “cherry picking” theology, and at best shows the inconsistency of that approach to biblical interpretation and application.
@127 Will do!
Mark,
I apologize if it seemed I was harsh toward you @115-117. I was rather frustrated that our discussions had once again circled back ’round to “private church”vs.”public church” and “in front of” or “behind a pulpit”…. 🙁
“Read Acts for yourself. He was not handing out “Two Ways To Live” leaflets. If preaching is only to Christians then I do not know if I have ever preached. Not sure how they do it in your church, do you test people before you preach and only the ones who can respond with correct answers to the shorter catechism stay and listen?”
Dave, May I second that? 🙂
“I do not think that the apostle Paul, or anyone, should be above learning or being helped by another person.”
Marg@121,
You bring out a very important point. Not even the apostle Peter was above learning a lesson from Paul. Also, Apollos was not a novice and had a thorough knowledge of scripture – “Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
Kristin,
Basically, it does always seem to boil down to the matter of presuppositions reading the text. Mark’s approach views “masculine” words in Greek mean that the word is masculine because according to him, quote: “It was only for specific men to fulfill that role. This is plain scriptural fact, not legalism.” Clearly, it’s part and parcel of the foundation of his faith – along with ‘formal’ church being conducted inside a ‘church’ building with a pulpit because that is the only setting in which ‘authoritative’ teaching or preaching can take place. In fact, that appears to be how he can tell the difference between ‘authoritative’ teaching and any other ‘ministry.’
Mark,
“To argue for ecclesiology as the primary function just doesn’t fit the context, nor the content of the letter, nor the overall purpose of the letter.”
I didn’t say it was the primary function of the letter – the letter has more than one function.
Please re-read Gal. 2 – Paul’s words regarding his confrontation with Peter. Did it have anything to do with teaching that the Gentiles weren’t saved? Or that they needed to be circumcised? No, Peter’s problem was that “he was eating with the Gentiles” before certain men returned to Antioch; then, “fearing the circumcision party” Peter quit eating with the Gentile believers. It had nothing to do with salvation. Peter realized that God brought salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 15). Eating with Gentiles was a sign of acceptance into the body of Christ.
One cannot simply deny these points being ecclesiology simply because some labeled this book as “soteriology. Period.”
Mark,
“At least be fair to what they actually say! I do think it is ok for women to co lead for example a bible study with their husband in private. I do think it is ok for a woman to be involved in evangelism. I do not think it is ok for a woman to lead the church and have the spiritual oversight of it. Nor do i think it is ok for a woman to expound the scriptures to a mixed congregation of believers. The context of 1 Tim illustrates why this is related to public congregational setting.”
But you are missing Dave’s point. Please show us in scripture where “in private” is located? And the number of people allowed in attendance before it is considered “a mixed congregation”? 10? 15? 30?
Brother, you know there are no rules like this in the Bible. Any rules and guidelines like that are made up by people who draw the lines where they wish. I’d really like to know the last time you were in a mixed congregation of ONLY believers? Tell me, how did you know with absolute certainty that everyone in that congregation was a believer? You read minds? Read hearts? You know Elders who do? C’mon now, Mark?
“Don’t confuse soteriology with ministry. This is the mistake that egals make with Gal 3:28 and as it”
Mark,
I’m going to ask you to take a better look at the context of Gal. 3:28. The Galatians were already Christians. Paul wasn’t answering “what is salvation” or “who can be saved?” He was addressing “How do we live together as children of God?” The issue at hand is ecclesiology: who constitutes the people of God and on what grounds are they constituted?” This is not a matter of soteriology. They have “clothed themselves with Christ,” Abraham’s true “seed” (Gal. 3:15-18), Paul points out the result: since all are now ‘children of God through faith’ and all who have been baptized are thus clothed with Christ, there is therefore ‘neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
You are correct and I agree that the levitical priesthood was fulfilled in Christ and we are now all part of that new priesthood of believers. Peter 4:10–11 “ As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
“As i understand 1 TIm 2:8-15, the teaching restricted is that linked with authority in the public congregational setting. That is, the preaching from the pulpit so to speak. This is the responsibility of the elders.”
We’ve been over this before. There were no “pulpit so to speak” of’s to speak of and no “formal” cathedral style buildings to meet inside for “formal” services. No limitation of placement (outdoors or indoors) is put forth for teaching, preaching, evangelizing or worshiping. The burden of proof is on you to show that any of these are limited to only certain locations.
“You need to understand ‘elder’ in conjunction with ‘bishop’ (see for example Titus 1) to see that ‘elder’ and ‘bishop’ were synonymous for the same function/office within the Church.”
Mark,
I do understand that. Thing is – I do not approach the text with the presupposition that “women cannot hold certain offices.”
I’m glad you see my point about diakonos & presbuteros. Of course, my further point is: there is precious little in the context to render the comp. view unless one approaches these words with the presupposition that “women cannot be elders or deacons.” Especially in light of the priesthood of all believers.
Hi pinklight,
It’s true @73 nails the logical fallacy. But it’s very difficult to step out of the institutionalized church box. Many people get mired in cognitive dissonance.
“Paul’s restriction in 1 Tim 2 is for the elders of the church who have the spiritual resposibility of preaching. Egalitarians confuse the comp position by combining all the different ‘teaching’ elements in the NT as if they are the same thing. Perhaps if comps weren’t so misunderstood (or deliberately mis-handled) egals might not think we are so patriarchal and suppressive”
Mark,
This verse is about “teaching” – where do you see “preaching” in these verses?
How does any “plain reading” manufacture an “office” out of 1 Tim. 2:11-14?
How is it that the Greek adjective presbuteros, (“older” or “elderly”) mysteriously became a noun, represented in the English text by an official sounding title, i.e., elder? What can be more misleading than the deliberate translation of a word to justify a practice; thus changing the Bible to suit a human system, rather than changing such a system to suit the Bible.
“Rebuke not an elder, (presbuteros) but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brothers; The elder (presbuteros) women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.” (1Tm:5:1-2)
The context of this scripture is completely relational, not institutional.
“I urge the elders: like shepherds, tend the flock of God among you. Watch over it. Don’t shepherd because you must, but do it voluntarily for God. Don’t shepherd by ruling over those entrusted to your care, but become examples to the flock.” (1Peter 5:2-3)
When the power of example is gone, all you have left is the tyranny of demanded conformity.
We have Timothy being instructed to relate to the elderly with respect. In an ecclesiastical, hierarchical context, where authority is positional rather than relational, the issue of age is irrelevant – it all depends upon who has the “title” and position. In today’s institutional churches it is perceived as a compromise of a pastor’s authority to relate to any untitled individual as his senior.
“But I’m writing these things to you so that if I’m delayed, you’ll know how you should behave in God’s household. It is the church of the living God and the backbone and support of the truth.” (1Tim.3:14-15)
Scripture lists two places where they taught, out in public and in homes. In the NT there is not one mention of anyone teaching or preaching in a church building. We’ve been over this before.