Spiritual Gifts A Means For Obedience

Amen Cheryl !!! As I sat here reading, I could hear Beethoven’s “Ode To Joy” playing in my head and in my heart. LET FREEDOM RING !

Thanks Greg. Freedom is a WONDERFUL thing!

Amen.
K

Cheryl,

Yet another great insight. Do not bury your gifts or you are being disobedient.

Don,
Amen!

Good stuff Cheryl.

Now I’ve a research question I hope someone can find some material for. On CARM someone said this:
“The public witness of Epiphanius is that Junian became bishop of Apameia. There is no known dissent by those of Apameia that Junian did not become bishop nor a proclamation or historical record from those of Apameia or elsewhere that their bishop was a woman.”

He’s been answered by Eldeon Epp’s quote from his book “Junia, the first Woman Apostle”. However, I didn’t recollect reading the bit about Junia being a bishop. Does anyone have any info on that?

Some of the things that need clarified about Junia:
1. There is no name found anywhere of any Junian/Junias. The name Junia however, is well attested.
2. The 12 apostles were chosen in a particular way because there job was to lay the foundation of the church. Paul is the only exception to that, yet he was still called personally in a miraculous way. All other apostles were still called personally by Christ because that is the way God calls anyone to any ministry. And there were indeed other apostles beside the 12 and Paul.
3. The Greek word for “among” indicates among the apostles. The attempt to say the apostles thought Andronicus and Junia were swell, is ridiculous and doesn’t fit with the introductions. Paul is introducing people and giving recognition of their ministries.

When reading the comp’s explanations of Rom 16:7 you can just see them squirming to avoid the plain meaning of the Greek, as it simply does not fit their worldview. So it simple CANNOT mean what it says. It may not be Junia, it may be Junias (even if we have to invent the name). It may not be notable within, it may be notable to (even if we need to translate away from the primary meaning). It may not be authoritative apostles, it may be non-auhoritative messengers (even if we need to invent this idea). AFTER ALL FOLKS, it simply cannot mean what it says.

Do they not realize how destructive such an attitude to the Bible is?

Yes, to them, “the plain meaning of scripture” is whatever English version suits their theology. If you go to the original languages they call it “gymnastics” and trying to change scripture.

Or even faze them.

I think the comps worldview is like wearing a blue lens when reading the Bible and seeing all those blue verses. They simply cannot imagine that this is what they are doing.

THANKS FOR THE POSTS.

Oy, a flashback to my electronics days. I must have been out of phase when I wrote that. 😉

Actually, a blue lens would make the blue verses invisible. They undoubtedly use something with a little more contrast.

Hey All, I just went over to the CBMW site and I’m wondering if anybody else has noticed how inaccessible they are? I mean here at WIM we have an open forum town square type of environment in which anybody is welcome to post and be heard so long as it’s civil and does not violate the bounds of accepted propriety. I’m noticing quite the opposite at CBMW. It’s almost as if John Winthrop’s ideal is still the norm over there. There is only what the clerical leadership says there will be. No discussion, no dissent, no exceptions unless of course you echo the ideology of the clerical oligarchy. No wonder Roger Williams left Massachusetts and founded Rhode Island! By the way, I love this little Rhode Island we have here!

Hi Greg,

I did notice that CBMW doesn’t have an open forum where people can dialog. A person can email their comments, but they don’t make the comments for all to see. I am not sure what they are afraid of. Perhaps some egalitarians might as them some hard questions? 🙂

teknomom,
I loved this:

“Actually, a blue lens would make the blue verses invisible. They undoubtedly use something with a little more contrast.”

You are sharp today! Let me add my two cents worth. I think they view the bible with a pink lens because the godly example of women leaders in the bible (the pink verses) have miraculously disappeared. After all didn’t God only use women because he didn’t have any men whom he could use? Lots of pink was used to bring this view into focus.

Cheryl, I did post one response to John Piper’s condemnation of women serving in combat. It went something like this: “Hmmm… I’m wondering how the Russian women who fought the Wehrmacht and the SS in the Ukraine would receive a cleric who told them that it’s against God’s law for them to do so…” And yes throughout most of their stuff over there I’ve noticed the arithmetic they use to make the secondary issue of gender a mandatory part of the Gospel.

One question…does anyone know how things have fared on Matt’s discussion board? Have I been properly buried and the grave stone marked yet?

FYI I lodged a formal complaint with the radio station that Matt has his program on and I spoke to them yesterday. There may be some very good things that come out of this mess and if/when these things come to pass, I will keep you all informed.

Cheryl, I wasn’t too sharp when I wrote “phase”, but something good came of it. :-0

Yeah, that old “God was scraping the bottom of the barrel when he used women” argument is so… what’s the word… sorry, it’s asinine. The most glaring problem with it is that scripture NEVER SAYS ANY SHUCH THING. They PRESUME God’s reasons instead of getting them from God; they put words in his mouth. But that’s what they do across the board, in their whole worldview from top to bottom.

The ONLY way the comps can claim to have any authority to speak to a group that does not recognize their authority is about the gospel, this is why they seek to extend it. By falsely extending the gospel they reduce the number of people that can accept it. There are MANY atheists and agnostics who AGREE with the comps, as they know that many people will then side with them. It is all so sad.

I didn’t get that Don. Could you please rephrase it. Thanks.

I’ve noticed that they don’t really have many arguments to support the verses they misuse. After they use them up, adamant gender hierarchalists then start resorting to name calling, defamation of character, etc. Or constant repetition. Get’s tiring.

But I keep seeing more ways that God’s Word weaves together the truth throught the whole of Scripture.

Let me clarify….

Don wrote: ” There are MANY atheists and agnostics who AGREE with the comps, as they know that many people will then side with them.”

Do you mean the athiests and agnostics agree with gender hierarchy? or? I don’t talk much with athiests. 🙂

Atheists and agnostics will try to point out that Christianity is offensive to and degrades women, etc. and they will quote the Bible and comp. interpretation. They WANT it to appear to be patriarchical, the better to get people to agree with them and reject Christianity as offensive. It is VERY educational to peek at some of their websites, they make up lists of why the Bible is offensive, etc. and the comps just play into their hands.

On what I was trying to say before, for example, the SBC which accepts the comp position, the comps can speak at their churches and people listen to them, because they are invited. As they are invited and endorsed by the leaders, they have authority. But lots of churches do not invite them.

So the comps have no authority to speak in many believer’s lives EXCEPT over a matter of sin. This is one reason they reach the conclusions they do and call a woman leading in church a rebellion, if they did not think this was the case, they should just mind their own business.

I think they view the bible with a pink lens because the godly example of women leaders in the bible (the pink verses) have miraculously disappeared. After all didn’t God only use women because he didn’t have any men whom he could use? Lots of pink was used to bring this view into focus.

Sounds like the root of the “feminization of the church” which seems to be of such concern on the Forum you instigated at CARM, Cheryl. 🙂

BTW, I still hang around over there… and they are not having a continuous “Cheryl roast” any more. I think you started a very good thing, though. There are quite a few visitors and clearly, some are taking the challenge to really dig deeper into the Bible for answers… which is a very good fruit 🙂 of your ugly experience 🙁

Thanks Charis for keeping me informed. I am glad that there is some good from what I started. That is just one forum I won’t be going back on and I guess it isn’t quite as much fun for them to roast me when I am not there to see it 🙂

I’ve been observing also. It is interesting how much some patriarchalist gender hierarchalists remind me of the Klu Klux Klan. 🙁