Not a Debate

[Bluelion]

Women,

If you say God says you can not preach over Men. I say you can preach over Men and it is by God you are appointed, so if you disagree with me. are you not guilty of usurping authority over me? Are you submitting to men in ministry as I am been formality trained or are you picking and choosing to who you submit. So then you are guilty of Usurping authority over a man, Me.

Women are equal to men, and God uses women in the church even to preach, but there is an order of family the man is the head of the family as God says literally. next is woman and then children. That is the order of family. Be free Sisters. Unless you think I am not a Child of God, then it really does not matter what I say does it, but do I speak with God's word? do I speak truth? That is how you know me. You can judge a man by his words for his words reflect what is in his heart. Jesus said that. measure my Words to the word of God and see if you do not find them the same. be free.

 

[now faith]

K the key word is usurp Authority do you understand what that word means? It means to take by force or act on ones behalf or self interest, Men should not do this same with Women.

God bless my Sisters you read God's word and realize when God says man should not do this He is speaking of woman to, but some men when God said women should not do this can not see it applies to men as well.

back to the poster, did you just say women are more likely to be deceived than man? Sorry but that shows bias and is untrue. I am a man and I have been deceived to the point I worshiped false gods, in fact you will find through out the Bible and history man has been deceived into worshiping false God's which are not real and not alive and have no power. Abraham worshiped the moon god. That is not what Paul meant when he wrote that, women are not more likely to be deceived. oh you do not realize your soul is in trouble. Eve battled satan, you are inviting the same temptation and you will fail in your current mind set as Eve did. Adam did not battle satan but was tempted by Eve. He was not deceived by Eve, he very well would have been by satan, for he devices men to this day to their death just as he did with Eve.

Have you ever battled satan? no? Well I have many many times, and it is not easy and I would have lost every time if not for Jesus. Man is not above an angel even the fallen ones, but a Son of God is very much above the fallen angels even God's Angels at times because Jesus lives in us and speaks through us. Repent my friend from your foolishness of youth.

If you go down this road there is much suffering ahead of you. there is arrogance in youth but not only in youth, repent, seek out humbleness.

1 Cor Paul was speaking of gossiping in church, The women had an issue and it is still common today of using church for a social gathering a time of gossiping. That is why he said women but men should not do it either.

You pull verse out of context to say your right. That is not how it works, we do not bend The Word to promote our views, we are taught them by God to see the truth. You my friend are very wrong.

Christian egalitarianism,teaches that Gossip was the proprietary reason for Paul teaching this at Corinth.

At Ephesus the worship of Diana is stated and the sexual misconduct that was done through idolatry,as well the castration of men and murder of men is taught as a reason.

 

[now faith]

My article on the subject...

This article will explain why women cannot be Pastors in a local church. Please understand this article is not against women, rather it is simply Biblical truth. God has different roles for both man and woman that we must obey.

1 Timothy 2:11 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

This verse teaches that a woman should be meek, quiet (1 Peter 3:4) and not usurp authority over the man in the home because he is the leader (1 Cor. 11:3). It goes on to say that the reason for this is because Eve was made for Adam, not the other way around. Eve was his help meet for Adam (Genesis 2:18) and is commanded to submit to him (Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18). Women are also more easily deceived compared to men.

1 Corinthians 14:34 "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."

The context of these verses is talking about speaking in tongues. Women were not aloud to speak in tongues when the Jewish signs were still present. Most of the churches that speak in tongues today will have women speaking in tongues also, which shows that not only are they liars, but they do not even obey the rules of speaking in tongues. The gift of tongues then were used to preach in a different language. That being said, these verses prove that women cannot be Pastors because in doing so, they have to usurp authority over males in the church, which is strictly against scripture.

However, this does not mean a woman cannot speak at all in church. Only that a woman cannot be in a position that deals with teaching or having authority over grown men. Women are aloud to testify and sing in church.

Psalms 107:2 "Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy;"

Psalms 150:6 "Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD."

Women are also aloud to teach younger women and and children. Doing this does not usurp authority over men.

Titus 2:3 "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,"

Women can teach the Bible to a man outside of the church, but only if her husband is present with her.

Acts 18:26 "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."

The Bible teaches that a Bishop, which is a Pastor has to be the husband(male) of one wife. A woman cannot hold the position of a Pastor or even a Deacon (1 Timothy 3:12).

1 Timothy 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

Some will argue that Phebe in Romans 16:1 was a deaconess, but this is not true. The Bible says that she was a "servant". The Greek word used here is not feminine, rather neutral. There is not one Greek lexicon anywhere that says "deaconess". There is no way that she could of been a deaconess because she was not the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:12).

Romans 16:1 "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:"

Not only does the Bible forbid women Pastors, Deacons and Preachers, but it also says that when a woman is the leader of a nation, apostasy and judgment is connected. That being said we should not have a woman President.

Isaiah 3:12 "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

Hello Cody,to add something here the definition of Deacon is servant.

The word "deacon" is derived from the Greek word diákonos (διάκονο&#962,[1] which is a standard ancient Greek word meaning "servant", "waiting-man", "minister", or "messenger".[2] One commonly promulgated speculation as to its etymology is that it literally means "through the dust", referring to the dust raised by the busy servant or messenger.[3] Wikipedia

Romans: 16. 1. I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: 2. That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. 3. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: 4. Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

 

[now faith]

Being saved Baptist,and son of a Baptist Preacher I still have a hard time learning from Female Preachers.

To me it seems their message is one for Women.

For example there are large conferences for Women and are Preached by Women.

I have nothing against Joyce Meyer's work,I attended her meeting and I felt it was more geared for Women.

Most of the Women you see teaching are teaching to Women.

One possibility that Paul commends Women in his ministry could be they were used to teach the Women at Corinth and Ephesus that had carnal issues.

 

[now faith]

How it came about that women began to preach and to usurp authority over Christian men in the Church is both an interesting and revealing story. The story begins with John Wesley and his belief that Christian theology should be based upon four things:

Scripture
Tradition
Experience
Reason

This concept is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Scripture is always of foremost importance, but according to Wesley it should never be studied apart from its historical interpretation and application. Belief in the Bible apart from the experience of it in one’s life does not constitute genuine faith—and the Christian experience must extend beyond one’s self into Christian service. Moreover, one’s beliefs must be capable of being defended in a rational manner based upon sound reasoning.




The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is the theological basis of the Methodist Church. The Salvation Army, the Church of the Nazarene, and the Pentecostal churches (of which the Assemblies of God is the largest denomination) are all outgrowths of the Methodist Church and its Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Wesley never imagined that his Quadrilateral would be so severely abused as to “justify” women serving as elders in the Church, but once personal Christian experience was allowed to have a voice in the formation of theology, it rapidly began to take dominance over Scripture. In 1859, Catherine Booth (a co-founder of the Salvation Army) wrote and published a pamphlet entitled, “Female Ministry: Woman’s Right to Preach the Gospel.” This pamphlet was written in defense of her new role model, the American Wesleyan revivalist Phoebe Palmer who, with her husband Walter, moved to the United Kingdom in 1859 where they lived and preached for several years—with Phoebe as the dominant partner.

Along with experience, reason also came to be severely abused, and women argued vehemently from reason (and by taking Scriptures out of context) in support of their new and novel doctrine. Most unfortunately, the fourth part of the Quadrilateral, tradition, was brushed aside.

Human beings have shown themselves to be capable of persuading themselves to believe almost anything—including the belief that their new and novel doctrines really are taught in the Bible.

I must disagree to Women in ministry being confined to Methodist and Penacostals or that being the orgin.

Presbyterian Church (USA/PCA)
Individual congregations of these church denominations also elect deacons, along with elders. However, in some churches the property-functions of the diaconate and session of elders is commended to an independent board of trustees. John Calvin's legacy of restoring a servant-ministry diaconate[26] lives on in the Presbyterian churches. Deacons are specially charged with ministries of mercy, especially toward the sick and the poor.[27]

Dutch protestant churches
In many Dutch Protestant churches deacons are charged with ministries of mercy. As such, the deacons are also a member of the local church council. A special feature of the Dutch churches is the fact that the Diaconate of each local church is an own legal entity with own financial means, separated from the church itself, and governed by the deacons.


Baptists
Baptists have traditionally followed the principle of the autonomy of the local church congregation, giving each church the ability to discern for themselves the interpretation of scripture. Thus, the views among Baptist churches as to who becomes a deacon and when, as well as what they do and how they go about doing it, vary greatly. Baptists recognize two ordained positions in the church as Elders (Pastors) and Deacons, as per 1 Timothy, third chapter.

There are Baptist churches where the deacons decide many of the church affairs. There are churches where deacons serve in a family ministry only. There are Baptist churches (especially in the United Kingdom, but also in the U.S. and elsewhere) where women are allowed to be deacons; while many Baptist churches do not allow women to serve as deacons. Many Baptists also interpret Scripture as prohibiting divorced men from serving as deacons.

In the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, deacons can be any adult male member of the congregation who is in good standing..

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I must disagree to Women in ministry being confined to Methodist and Penacostals or that being the orgin.

Presbyterian Church (USA/PCA)
Individual congregations of these church denominations also elect deacons, along with elders. However, in some churches the property-functions of the diaconate and session of elders is commended to an independent board of trustees. John Calvin's legacy of restoring a servant-ministry diaconate[26] lives on in the Presbyterian churches. Deacons are specially charged with ministries of mercy, especially toward the sick and the poor.[27]

When coping and pasting the work of others into your posts, please give credit to them.

The first Presbyterian church to ordain a female pastor was the Cumberland Presbyterian Church when they ordained Louisa Woosley in 1889. By this time, the practice of ordaining women had begun to spread beyond churches in the Methodist tradition.

Baptists
Baptists have traditionally followed the principle of the autonomy of the local church congregation, giving each church the ability to discern for themselves the interpretation of scripture. Thus, the views among Baptist churches as to who becomes a deacon and when, as well as what they do and how they go about doing it, vary greatly. Baptists recognize two ordained positions in the church as Elders (Pastors) and Deacons, as per 1 Timothy, third chapter.

There are Baptist churches where the deacons decide many of the church affairs. There are churches where deacons serve in a family ministry only. There are Baptist churches (especially in the United Kingdom, but also in the U.S. and elsewhere) where women are allowed to be deacons; while many Baptist churches do not allow women to serve as deacons. Many Baptists also interpret Scripture as prohibiting divorced men from serving as deacons.

In the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, deacons can be any adult male member of the congregation who is in good standing..

When coping and pasting the work of others into your posts, please give credit to them.

On May 18, 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee issued a recommendation that included the following statement, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” This statement cites 1 Timothy 2:9-14. On June 14, at the SBC’s annual meeting, the recommendation was ratified. Although the SBC currently has about 1,600 ordained women, including 30 senior pastors, no further female pastors are being ordained. (The convention’s Baptist Faith and Message is the denominations official statement of faith).

 

[now faith]

When coping and pasting the work of others into your posts, please give credit to them.

The first Presbyterian church to ordain a female pastor was the Cumberland Presbyterian Church when they ordained Louisa Woosley in 1889. By this time, the practice of ordaining women had begun to spread beyond churches in the Methodist tradition.



When coping and pasting the work of others into your posts, please give credit to them.

On May 18, 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee issued a recommendation that included the following statement, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” This statement cites 1 Timothy 2:9-14. On June 14, at the SBC’s annual meeting, the recommendation was ratified. Although the SBC currently has about 1,600 ordained women, including 30 senior pastors, no further female pastors are being ordained. (The convention’s Baptist Faith and Message is the denominations official statement of faith).

Noted:on pasting.

Most often my source is Wikipedia,personally by using secular media I believe it removes the denominational spin.

Most often everyone who posts on the forums use [ other people's work] it is the
research efforts of the poster to have a relevant meaning for their research.

 

[Bluelion]

Noted:on pasting.

Most often my source is Wikipedia,personally by using secular media I believe it removes the denominational spin.

Most often everyone who posts on the forums use [ other people's work] it is the
research efforts of the poster to have a relevant meaning for their research.

I bet he is guilty of not referencing a source correctly, but it is much easy to point out mistakes in others then to look at our own.

 

[OzSpen]

Noted:on pasting.

Most often my source is Wikipedia,personally by using secular media I believe it removes the denominational spin.

Most often everyone who posts on the forums use [ other people's work] it is the
research efforts of the poster to have a relevant meaning for their research.

now faith,

It is important to reference our sources if we are challenging another person's theology. I urge you not to use Wikipedia as a source as it is not regarded as a reliable historical and theological source. There are times when I've checked Wikipedia and found it to be OK when one of its articles has referenced sources for which I can then check further.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I bet he is guilty of not referencing a source correctly, but it is much easy to point out mistakes in others then to look at our own.

Bluelion,

I find this to be an unfair pronouncement of judgment when you have provided no examples to demonstrate your point. 'I bet he is guilty of not referencing a source correctly' is not evidence. It is opinion and a damaging assumption as no evidence is provided.

I urge you not to use this approach when exposing another person's views on this forum.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

I refer to your post at #66. You wrote:

When coping and pasting the work of others into your posts, please give credit to them.

The first Presbyterian church to ordain a female pastor was the Cumberland Presbyterian Church when they ordained Louisa Woosley in 1889. By this time, the practice of ordaining women had begun to spread beyond churches in the Methodist tradition.

I agree with you that credit should be given when copying and pasting the work of others.

However, here you have given information about the first Presbyterian church to ordain a female pastor and that the practice had become widespread in the Methodist tradition. How do I know that statement is correct as you have provided no source for your information. I urge you to provide sources for your details.

You also wrote:

When coping and pasting the work of others into your posts, please give credit to them.

On May 18, 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee issued a recommendation that included the following statement, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” This statement cites 1 Timothy 2:9-14. On June 14, at the SBC’s annual meeting, the recommendation was ratified. Although the SBC currently has about 1,600 ordained women, including 30 senior pastors, no further female pastors are being ordained. (The convention’s Baptist Faith and Message is the denominations official statement of faith).

Again, I agree with you about copying and pasting and the need to give credit.

But what did you do? You provided information about the May 18, 2000, Southern Baptist Convention Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee but there was no source to confirm what you stated.

I urge you to provide sources when you post information like this. Otherwise, we have to go Googling to try to find this information. To be consistent, what you ask of one poster to do with copying and pasting, I ask of you to do when you provide information about specific events and messages. Please provide us with (1) a URL link to sources if that is available online, or (2) the name and bibliographical details (including specific page numbers) where this information can be located.

Thank you for considering all of us in this matter.

Oz

 

[godenver1]

I think any body who God speaks through is qualified for ministry. That does not mean they don't need training. We all have different gifts, God uses us all even the lost.

Perhaps another topic, but I wouldn't want anyone who isn't formally qualified and educated to be a person I defer to for their services unless it is necessary, I.e I visit a doctor who has a college education, and I'd very strongly prefer my priests to have the same.

 

[OzSpen]

Originally Posted by godenver1

Perhaps another topic, but I wouldn't want anyone who isn't formally qualified and educated to be a person I defer to for their services unless it is necessary, I.e I visit a doctor who has a college education, and I'd very strongly prefer my priests to have the same.
​

This is what college education (and a doctorate to boot) did for Dr John Dominic Crossan, Roman Catholic priest who resigned from the Servite community in 1969 to marry and then joined the faculty of religious studies and taught undergraduates for 24 years at DePaul University, Chicago (a Roman Catholic University): He wrote this about Jesus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection:

• It’s a ‘grim conclusion’ that Crossan claims he is unable to avoid:'The story of Jesus' burial by his friends was totally unhistorical. If he was buried at all, he was buried not by his friends but by his enemies. And not in a tomb hewed out of stone, but in a shallow grave that would have made his body easy prey for scavenging animals' (Crossan & Watts 1996:152-153).
• ‘The Easter story is not about the events of a single day, but reflects the struggle of Jesus’ followers over a period of months and years to make sense of both his death and their continuing experience of empowerment by him’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:153).
• The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus ‘to various people are not really about “visions” at all, but are literary fiction promoted by struggles over leadership in the early Church’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:153).
• Resurrection is only one ‘of the metaphors used to express the sense of Jesus’ continuing presence with his followers and friends’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:153).
• The empty tomb was not historical; he doubts that was an empty tomb; Jesus’ followers probably did not know where he was buried and the Gospel writers cannot agree with each other. So, ‘motives other than just history writing are clearly at work here’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:154).
• 'Mark created the empty tomb story just as he created the sleeping disciples in Gethsemane' (Crossan 1999:11).

Therefore, a priest obtaining a higher education does not guarantee accuracy with dealing with the biblical text.

Crossan is a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar.

Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1999. Historical Jesus as risen Lord, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber, W H, The Jesus controversy : Perspectives in conflict, 1-47. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Crossan, J D with Watts, R G 1996. Who Is Jesus? Answers to your questions about the historical Jesus. New York: HarperPaperbacks.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Originally Posted by godenver1

Perhaps another topic, but I wouldn't want anyone who isn't formally qualified and educated to be a person I defer to for their services unless it is necessary, I.e I visit a doctor who has a college education, and I'd very strongly prefer my priests to have the same.
​

This is what college education (and a doctorate to boot) did for Dr John Dominic Crossan, Roman Catholic priest who resigned from the Servite community in 1969 to marry and then joined the faculty of religious studies and taught undergraduates for 24 years at DePaul University, Chicago (a Roman Catholic University): He wrote this about Jesus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection:

• It’s a ‘grim conclusion’ that Crossan claims he is unable to avoid:'The story of Jesus' burial by his friends was totally unhistorical. If he was buried at all, he was buried not by his friends but by his enemies. And not in a tomb hewed out of stone, but in a shallow grave that would have made his body easy prey for scavenging animals' (Crossan & Watts 1996:152-153).
• ‘The Easter story is not about the events of a single day, but reflects the struggle of Jesus’ followers over a period of months and years to make sense of both his death and their continuing experience of empowerment by him’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:153).
• The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus ‘to various people are not really about “visions” at all, but are literary fiction promoted by struggles over leadership in the early Church’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:153).
• Resurrection is only one ‘of the metaphors used to express the sense of Jesus’ continuing presence with his followers and friends’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:153).
• The empty tomb was not historical; he doubts that was an empty tomb; Jesus’ followers probably did not know where he was buried and the Gospel writers cannot agree with each other. So, ‘motives other than just history writing are clearly at work here’ (Crossan & Watts 1996:154).
• 'Mark created the empty tomb story just as he created the sleeping disciples in Gethsemane' (Crossan 1999:11).

Therefore, a priest obtaining a higher education does not guarantee accuracy with dealing with the biblical text.

Crossan is a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar.

Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1999. Historical Jesus as risen Lord, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber, W H, The Jesus controversy : Perspectives in conflict, 1-47. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Crossan, J D with Watts, R G 1996. Who Is Jesus? Answers to your questions about the historical Jesus. New York: HarperPaperbacks.

No one is suggesting that a priest earning a Ph.D. is a guarantee that he will be a good priest, but having an excellent education is an invaluable asset to a pastor and teacher.

 

[OzSpen]

No one is suggesting that a priest earning a Ph.D. is a guarantee that he will be a good priest, but having an excellent education is an invaluable asset to a pastor and teacher.

I was responding to a poster who said that 'I visit a doctor who has a college education, and I'd very strongly prefer my priests to have the same'.

I gave an example from a priest (now a former priest) who teaches heretical doctrine. An 'excellent education' is no guarantee these days of a pastor and teacher being trained in orthodoxy. Or, are you suggesting that this 'excellent education' could be taught in one of the house churches in the mountains of, say, China or must it refer to formal education in theological college/seminary in the West?

 

[Bluelion]

Perhaps another topic, but I wouldn't want anyone who isn't formally qualified and educated to be a person I defer to for their services unless it is necessary, I.e I visit a doctor who has a college education, and I'd very strongly prefer my priests to have the same.

well you see unlike a doctor The Holy Spirit will can and does speak through people. That means no education is needed. Also I am getting a formal education, I will spend about 10 years in school by the time I am done with my Phd. That is my path God has led me on. However I could then take on one two or any number of disciples and teach them what I know. They would not have the formal training but they would have the wisdom I got from mine. So you see there are many ways. Just because a person is trained does not mean they were called or meant to be there, and because a person was not trained does not mean they were not called.

The key is the calling by God, all else is just details.

 

[godenver1]

well you see unlike a doctor The Holy Spirit will can and does speak through people. That means no education is needed. Also I am getting a formal education, I will spend about 10 years in school by the time I am done with my Phd. That is my path God has led me on. However I could then take on one two or any number of disciples and teach them what I know. They would not have the formal training but they would have the wisdom I got from mine. So you see there are many ways. Just because a person is trained does not mean they were called or meant to be there, and because a person was not trained does not mean they were not called.

The key is the calling by God, all else is just details.

That scares me, and is probably how cults are started: "Hey, guys, I have no actual training but I feel the Holy Spirit has called me to share the following message......"

why should I trust someone who 'feels' like they're sharing the gospel, when it contradicts another?

 

[Bluelion]

That scares me, and is probably how cults are started: "Hey, guys, I have no actual training but I feel the Holy Spirit has called me to share the following message......"

why should I trust someone who 'feels' like they're sharing the gospel, when it contradicts another?

You shouldn't trust them. God said to question everyone that comes in His name with The Word. You are suppose to know The Word well enough on your own to know when people are preaching against it. You can always ask them to show with Biblical proof, but if you don't know for yourself this will not help because your dependent on them, depend on God.

some things.

If a church speaks more about the preacher than Jesus something is wrong in that church. If the preacher speaks more about him self then Jesus something is wrong. You know the preacher by him preaching The Word of God, through God you know your preacher. You should also be able to tell when Jesus is speaking through some one. The preacher is just a slave of The Master, do you speak how great the slave is or the Master? Does a slave get any praise at all? No! Not unless The Master gives it to him. It's about Jesus not any man, that is how you know. God said they come in there own name. The false teachers are all about them, they will not point to truth because truth is The Light and it shows the darkness in them. So they run from The Truth, The Light, and hide in darkness.

 

[godenver1]

You shouldn't trust them. God said to question everyone that comes in His name with The Word. You are suppose to know The Word well enough on your own to know when people are preaching against it. You can always ask them to show with Biblical proof, but if you don't know for yourself this will not help because your dependent on them, depend on God.

And that is done through education, and learning from someone with an education and someone who is formally equipped to teach and handle anything that comes their way in the job. Someone who picks up their bible and wants to preach is not as equipped as a Roman Catholic priest who has been educated.

As for biblical proof, a Baptist wouldn't agree with a Roman Catholic on aspects of the bible. If a formally trained Lutheran pastor tells me baptism is salvific I am going to agree with them 100x over than a Baptist layman who tries to convince me otherwise. One has been taught actual exegesis, the other thinks he knows what it is.

 

[now faith]

And that is done through education, and learning from someone with an education and someone who is formally equipped to teach and handle anything that comes their way in the job. Someone who picks up their bible and wants to preach is not as equipped as a Roman Catholic priest who has been educated.

As for biblical proof, a Baptist wouldn't agree with a Roman Catholic on aspects of the bible. If a formally trained Lutheran pastor tells me baptism is salvific I am going to agree with them 100x over than a Baptist layman who tries to convince me otherwise. One has been taught actual exegesis, the other thinks he knows what it is.

Using your circular logic,the better the education equates to a better Preacher.

My logic dictates education does not trump the anointing of the call of a ministerial gift.

Education is based on the theology of institutions,and by your own words they do not agree.

In front of a body of a thousand believers,would you trust your theology in the pulpit ?

James: 1. 23. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24. For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.