Mark

The comments are extensive so i will reply the best i can…

1. Obviously i believe that there is a ‘formal’ type gathering demonstrated in Pauls epistles, and many don’t. I have shown why i believe this but no one has given any evidence to conclude that 1 Cor 14 is not directed to a ‘formal’ type gathering. Likewise do any of you bother going to church on a sunday? IF you do, why do you bother, if Sunday ‘Church’ is the same as bible study and the like. Your own actions if you go to church, contradict your own view.

2. Cheryl, i don’t see prophesying in Cor as the same as teaching. If that is what your bible exposition looks like in your church i would be very intrigued to visit one day. There are many different types of ‘prophecy’ outlined in scripture. We ought not bulk them together under the banner of ‘teaching’ or preaching. If you think we should, please show how scripture does this? Also i have repreated said that 1 Tim was written to Timothy not a church. If you can outline from 1 Timothy how is role is not a ‘pastor’ from what Paul is instructs him to do please also show?

3. The term ‘Pastor’ is an office of the NT. IT derives from the idea of shephard/prebyter/overseer. It is not man made tradition. In fact im a bit sick of being referred to traditon all the time. It’s in the bible. Maybe we should question who is more influenced by society, the comp view or egal view? I’ll leave the answer up to you.

4. Cheryl, again i totally disagree with your understanding of the priesthood. Exodus 19 is actually the only occurance where the 2 hebrew words form together ‘kingdom of priests’. The Levitical priesthood could only ever be done by men from the tribe of Levi-scripture teaches this. Calvin summarises Israels adn Christians role as ‘Prophet, Priest and King’. Symbolically we are a kingdom of priests- we represent God on this world. Priesthood imagery and symbolism is used all throughout scripture. If we are to always take it literary you contradict yourself. You used Exodus 19 as ‘proof’ but then said the Hebrew priesthood never came to fulfilment? Did God lie or fail with Israel in your view? If Romans 12 is literal why dont we literary sacrifice ourselves. Like it or not, the ‘priesthood’ is symbolism and should not be used as supposed evidence to support the view that women can be pastors/elders.

you said “Can you back up your claim that there are “real” priests and only “symbolic” priests? The onus is on you to prove that there is only symbolism.”

yes i can- scripture only ever had men from the tribe of Levi a ‘priests’ in the real sense. If you think women filled this role show me. THe rest of Israel was symbolised as kingdom of priests- all genders included. How else could God say that they were a kingdom of priests if it is not understood this way. It would make God a liar and untrustworthy. How do you reconcile this? Jesus came as the great and final sacrifice, and instituted the ‘kingdom of God’. Is this literal or metaphoric Cheryl? Peter saids in his first letter “But you are a chosen PEOPLE, a royal priesthood, a holy NATION, a people belonging to God, that you may DECLARE THE PRAISES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS WONDERFUL LIGHT”. If this is not metaphorical for our role as ‘priesthood’, how is it then literal. The fact is, you have entangled the literal Levitical Priesthood of the Hebrew cult with the with the metaphorical understanding of the people of God as a kingdom of Priests.

Again i would be very interersted to hear Daves view on this. I will be very surprised if he supports your view here Cheryl. Covenant theology is very well understood in Prebyterian circles, in Australia anyway. Also no body else has said anything about this issue. DO people support Cheryl’s view on this?

Just a quick side note. Acts 16 is not the establishment of the Phillipian Church, nor is it a ‘church’ gathering. Verse 13 tells us that they were looking for a place of Prayer. They met Lydia, evangelised to her and baptised her. This is evangelism/mission not a church gathering. We see elsewhere (Acts 8) with the Ethiopian Eunuch where baptism follows evangelism and witnessing. This is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude that Phillip and the Ethiopian where having a church service aswell?

The fact is Cor is addressing a formal church gathering. Please use relevant ‘proof’ texts to show otherwise.

Kay you asked “Why do you catagorize the preaching to or teaching of youth/children as less ‘formal’ or authoritative than other times believers gather to worship/learn the Word?”

My answer, because Paul does. Again 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim are church gatherings. What you and others here are classifying as church are not what Paul is discussing. If you can disprove this please do? The fact is, both texts are in the context of believers gathering together in a ‘formal’ way, what is appropriate and what is not!

I believe the onus is up to all of you to show how the Levital Priesthood should be understood as literarily growing into a kingdom of Priests where men from other tribes and any women would have been aloud to perform the sacrificial system of Israel. Also it is up to all of you to show how Paul is NOT addressing a formal gathering in these 2 texts.