Ordination of Women

Gregory Thompson · Jan 28, 2010

Okay .. so according to the rules ..

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
a. The doctrine of the Trinity
b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

okay .. now that all these pictures of what that means have filled your hearts and minds ..

i think the only thing that needs to be settled are these three .

Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

If the bible gives instructions . and God acts otherwise . which one do you follow?

Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

A little problematic . because what if the bible says more than one thing is so?

Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";

Not a problem .

NorrinRadd · Jan 28, 2010

MatthewDiscipleofGod said:
You are saying Moody supported women being senior pastors? Please cite your source.

"Major evangelical schools such as Nyack, Gordon, and Northwestern provided women with the training to preach, enter the pastorate, and teach Bible, while committed to a high view of Scriptural authority. Leading the pack was Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, founded by Dwight L. Moody in 1889 as the Bible Institute of the Chicago Evangelization Society.

"MBI women openly served as pastors, evangelists, pulpit supply preachers, Bible teachers, and even in the ordained ministry. The school's official publication, Moody Monthly,listed Lottie Osborn Sheidler as the first woman to graduate from the pastor's course, in August 1929. The activities of alumnae provide the most important indication of MBI's openness to women in public ministry. Equipped at Moody with the skills they needed, female graduates served as pastors and served in a wide range of denominations.

"Although MBI leaders may not have always explicitly encouraged women to preach, pastor, or seek ordination, their implicit endorsement of women in those authoritative roles for over forty years cannot be denied. MBI offers the clearest documentation of a turn-of-the-century evangelical institution outside of the Wesleyan holiness camp that actively promoted public church ministry for women None questioned Moody's commitment to a verbally inspired , inerrant Bible. Consequently, the early MBI stands as an appropriate educational symbol of 'fundamentalist feminism.'"

-- Discovering Biblical Equality, pp. 41-42

"... Moody Bible Institute opposed Aimee Semple McPherson's Pentecostal doctrine of healing, but not her right to preach or pastor." -- DBE p. 46

MatthewDiscipleofGod · Jan 28, 2010

NorrinRadd said:
"Major evangelical schools such as Nyack, Gordon, and Northwestern provided women with the training to preach, enter the pastorate, and teach Bible, while committed to a high view of Scriptural authority. Leading the pack was Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, founded by Dwight L. Moody in 1889 as the Bible Institute of the Chicago Evangelization Society.

"MBI women openly served as pastors, evangelists, pulpit supply preachers, Bible teachers, and even in the ordained ministry. The school's official publication, Moody Monthly,listed Lottie Osborn Sheidler as the first woman to graduate from the pastor's course, in August 1929. The activities of alumnae provide the most important indication of MBI's openness to women in public ministry. Equipped at Moody with the skills they needed, female graduates served as pastors and served in a wide range of denominations.

"Although MBI leaders may not have always explicitly encouraged women to preach, pastor, or seek ordination, their implicit endorsement of women in those authoritative roles for over forty years cannot be denied. MBI offers the clearest documentation of a turn-of-the-century evangelical institution outside of the Wesleyan holiness camp that actively promoted public church ministry for women None questioned Moody's commitment to a verbally inspired , inerrant Bible. Consequently, the early MBI stands as an appropriate educational symbol of 'fundamentalist feminism.'"

-- Discovering Biblical Equality, pp. 41-42

"... Moody Bible Institute opposed Aimee Semple McPherson's Pentecostal doctrine of healing, but not her right to preach or pastor." -- DBE p. 46

Thanks for the information. I know people that went to that school that are completely against women preaching to men. I will have to ask them about this. If this is true then I have lost a lot of respect for Moody's ministry work.

Izdaari Eristikon · Jan 28, 2010

MatthewDiscipleofGod said:
Thanks for the information. I know people that went to that school that are completely against women preaching to men. I will have to ask them about this. If this is true then I have lost a lot of respect for Moody's ministry work.

And I have gained some.

NorrinRadd · Jan 28, 2010

MatthewDiscipleofGod said:
Thanks for the information. I know people that went to that school that are completely against women preaching to men. I will have to ask them about this. If this is true then I have lost a lot of respect for Moody's ministry work.

Izdaari said:
And I have gained some.

According to my source, Moody and several other evangelical "proto-fundamentalists" (e.g., A. B. Simpson, founder of the C&MA, and well-known Baptist A. J. Gordon), as well as some early self-professed "fundamentalists" (e.g. W. B. Riley and J. R. Stranton) all welcomed women in ministry, as did the educational institutions founded by some of those men. But by the 1930s or so, they became alarmed by some of the problems they perceived to be associated with the *secular* feminist movement, and so they had what I would characterize as an unhealthy reactionary response, and changed their doctrine and practice. Notably, they at that time shifted from interpreting 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as "situational," applying specifically to those local churches, to "universal," applying to all the people of God at all times.

MatthewDiscipleofGod · Jan 28, 2010

NorrinRadd said:
According to my source, Moody and several other evangelical "proto-fundamentalists" (e.g., A. B. Simpson, founder of the C&MA, and well-known Baptist A. J. Gordon), as well as some early self-professed "fundamentalists" (e.g. W. B. Riley and J. R. Stranton) all welcomed women in ministry, as did the educational institutions founded by some of those men. But by the 1930s or so, they became alarmed by some of the problems they perceived to be associated with the *secular* feminist movement, and so they had what I would characterize as an unhealthy reactionary response, and changed their doctrine and practice. Notably, they at that time shifted from interpreting 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as "situational," applying specifically to those local churches, to "universal," applying to all the people of God at all times.

All fundamentalists believe in women's ministry. It is teaching over men that is forbidden by God in his word. Moody died in 1899 so it may be the school that has gone astray. I'll find out.

Gregory Thompson · Jan 28, 2010

so when it comes down to it . it's just traditions of men eh?

alright .

bless .

DeaconDean · Jan 29, 2010

Theological liberalism was the downfall of Israel during Jesus' ministry as evidenced by the Pharisees, Sadduces, and scribes.

It is also the downfall of the church today as evidenced by many things which were not acceptable in scripture, but are now perfectly acceptable by todays standards.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Gregory Thompson · Jan 29, 2010

DeaconDean said:
Theological liberalism was the downfall of Israel during Jesus' ministry as evidenced by the Pharisees, Sadduces, and scribes.

It is also the downfall of the church today as evidenced by many things which were not acceptable in scripture, but are now perfectly acceptable by todays standards.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Do not forget that the theological knee-kerk reaction when returning from captivity made them miss the Messiah in length .

Ecclesiastes 7

16 Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?

17 Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?

18 It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all extremes .

NorrinRadd · Jan 29, 2010

DeaconDean said:
Theological liberalism was the downfall of Israel during Jesus' ministry as evidenced by the Pharisees, Sadduces, and scribes.

It is also the downfall of the church today as evidenced by many things which were not acceptable in scripture, but are now perfectly acceptable by todays standards.

God Bless

Till all are one.

How do you define theological liberalism and conservatism?

Do you believe they must necessarily lead to across-the-board social liberalism and conservatism respectively?

DeaconDean · Jan 29, 2010

NorrinRadd said:
How do you define theological liberalism and conservatism?

Here is the definition as given by the Theopedia:

Theological liberalism, sometimes known as Protestant Liberalism, is a theological movement rooted in the early 19th century German Enlightenment, notably in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the religious views of Friedrich Schleiermacher. It is an attempt to incorporate modern thinking and developments, especially in the sciences, into the Christian faith. Liberalism tends to emphasize ethics over doctrine and experience over Scriptural authority. While essentially a 19th century movement, theological liberalism came to dominate the American mainline churches in the early 20th century. Liberal Christian scholars embraced and encouraged the higher biblical criticism of modern Biblical scholarship.
Protestant liberal thought in its most traditional incarnations emphasized the universal Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the infinite value of the human soul, the example of Jesus, and the establishment of the moral-ethical Kingdom of God on Earth. It has often been relativistic, pluralistic, and non-doctrinal.

Liberalism birthed other movements with varying emphases. Among these movements have been the Social Gospel, theological Feminism, Liberation theology, Process theology, and the Jesus Seminar. One product of these movements is the heretical Myth of Christian Origins which denies the divinity of Christ and the authority of scripture.

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Theological liberalism is as evidenced by the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduces of Jesus' day. They had so twisted the "Law" governing divorce that in most cases, it was OK to divorce a womam if her husband did not like her cooking.

Theological Liberalism is evidenced by Crawford Toy also in 1868 who was Professor of Old Testament Hebrew. While at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, after leaving to study at the University of Berlin, he came back to the United States and began to teach a blend of "social Darwinism" with his teaching of the book of Genesis and the creation.

In 1858, James Petigru Boyce wrote "The Abstract of Principles". All teachers at Sothern Baptist seminaries were required as a condition for employment, had to sign this and agree to teach according to these principles.

That did not last to far until teachers began to sign it and then teach anything they wanted.

When the Conservatives re-gained control of the SBC, this was once again enforced. Praise God!

Do you believe they must necessarily lead to across-the-board social liberalism and conservatism respectively?

Yes I do.

In 1952, Liberals gained a foothold of the SBC. In 198_ something, Fundamental Conservatives regained control of the SBC. For the 30 some years preceeding this event, Liberal teaching was so predominate in the SBC seminiaries that in 1974, a survey was taken of the beliefs at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and it was found that 98% of the first year studnets believed the virgin birth and that Jesus was God.

By the time they reached the doctorate level, only 31% of the doctorate students believed what they did when they started seminary.

I personally don't want a pastor in my church preaching and teaching who does not believe in the virgin birth nor the divinty of Jesus Christ.

Yet this is the fruits of Liberalism. And yet, these students are now pastors and leaders in our Assocations.

"No, I'm delighted that liberal theologians do their best to do what Pio Nono said shouldn't be done -- try to accommodate Christianity to modern science, modern culture, and democratic society. If I were a fundamentalist Christian, I'd be appalled by the wishy-washiness of their version of the Christian faith. But since I am a non-believer who is frightened of the barbarity of many fundamentalist Christians (e.g., their homophobia), I welcome theological liberalism. Maybe liberal theologians will eventually produce a version of Christianity so wishy-washy that nobody will be interested in being a Christian any more. If so, something will have been lost, but probably more will have been gained."

- Richard Rorty, a postmodern philosopher

I am dead set against liberalism in all its various forms.

God Bless

Till all are one.

NorrinRadd · Jan 29, 2010

DeaconDean said:
Here is the definition as given by the Theopedia:

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Theological liberalism is as evidenced by the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduces of Jesus' day. They had so twisted the "Law" governing divorce that in most cases, it was OK to divorce a womam if her husband did not like her cooking.

Interesting example, and an interesting perspective on what constitutes "liberal." I'm sure you're aware that some would argue that it was Jesus who had the (socially) liberal view in regard to divorce, in that He equalized the rights of both marriage partners in regard to divorce.

Theological Liberalism is evidenced by Crawford Toy also in 1868 who was Professor of Old Testament Hebrew. While at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, after leaving to study at the University of Berlin, he came back to the United States and began to teach a blend of "social Darwinism" with his teaching of the book of Genesis and the creation.

In 1858, James Petigru Boyce wrote "The Abstract of Principles". All teachers at Sothern Baptist seminaries were required as a condition for employment, had to sign this and agree to teach according to these principles.

That did not last to far until teachers began to sign it and then teach anything they wanted.

When the Conservatives re-gained control of the SBC, this was once again enforced. Praise God!

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

Do you believe they must necessarily lead to across-the-board social liberalism and conservatism respectively?

Yes I do.

So you believe scholars like Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, and P. B. Payne do not really exist; that is, it is intrinsically impossible for one to hold to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, affirm the deity and virgin birth of Christ and the historical reality of Scriptural miracles, and yet arrive at the socially "liberal" conclusion that God does not intend any sort of gender-based hierarchy, in home, church, or anywhere else?

You believe that such fundamentalists as Riley and Stranton and proto-fundamentalists as Moody and Simpson did not exist?

In 1952, Liberals gained a foothold of the SBC.

I assume you regard A. J. Gordon as a "liberal" who exerted a large unhealthy influence long before that.

In 198_ something, Fundamental Conservatives regained control of the SBC. For the 30 some years preceeding this event, Liberal teaching was so predominate in the SBC seminiaries that in 1974, a survey was taken of the beliefs at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and it was found that 98% of the first year studnets believed the virgin birth and that Jesus was God.

By the time they reached the doctorate level, only 31% of the doctorate students believed what they did when they started seminary.

I personally don't want a pastor in my church preaching and teaching who does not believe in the virgin birth nor the divinty of Jesus Christ.

Yet this is the fruits of Liberalism. And yet, these students are now pastors and leaders in our Assocations.

...

I agree with your stance in not wanting leaders who reject the deity of Christ or the authority of Scripture. However, I know of too many examples of Christian scholars and leaders with a "high" view of Scripture who reached *some* socially liberal positions -- and not in spite of their view of Scripture, but because of it -- to accept your conclusion that a liberal or conservative position in one realm necessarily correlates with a similar position across the board in all other realms.

DeaconDean · Jan 30, 2010

NorrinRadd said:
Interesting example, and an interesting perspective on what constitutes "liberal." I'm sure you're aware that some would argue that it was Jesus who had the (socially) liberal view in regard to divorce, in that He equalized the rights of both marriage partners in regard to divorce.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
Do you believe they must necessarily lead to across-the-board social liberalism and conservatism respectively?

So you believe scholars like Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, and P. B. Payne do not really exist; that is, it is intrinsically impossible for one to hold to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, affirm the deity and virgin birth of Christ and the historical reality of Scriptural miracles, and yet arrive at the socially "liberal" conclusion that God does not intend any sort of gender-based hierarchy, in home, church, or anywhere else?

You believe that such fundamentalists as Riley and Stranton and proto-fundamentalists as Moody and Simpson did not exist?

I assume you regard A. J. Gordon as a "liberal" who exerted a large unhealthy influence long before that.

I agree with your stance in not wanting leaders who reject the deity of Christ or the authority of Scripture. However, I know of too many examples of Christian scholars and leaders with a "high" view of Scripture who reached *some* socially liberal positions -- and not in spite of their view of Scripture, but because of it -- to accept your conclusion that a liberal or conservative position in one realm necessarily correlates with a similar position across the board in all other realms.

Let me say this, I did not say I did not believe the people you mentioned did not exist, your putting words in my mouth.

When people say that it is perfectly acceptable to ordain women into the minstry such as pastors of the church, then they are liberal, and their actions do not match with what scriptures states.

"Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." -Rev. 2:4 (KJV)

So you believe scholars like Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, and P. B. Payne do not really exist; that is, it is intrinsically impossible for one to hold to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, affirm the deity and virgin birth of Christ and the historical reality of Scriptural miracles, and yet arrive at the socially "liberal" conclusion that God does not intend any sort of gender-based hierarchy, in home, church, or anywhere else?

What do the scriptures teach? Yes they do, are you saying that we should throw that away as an antiquated belief from 2 millennia ago?

Seems to me that I read somewhere:

"For I am the LORD, I change not;" -Mal. 3:6 (KJV)

If God does not change, and scriptures are the word of God, then if God does not change, then His word the scriptures do not change. Yet liberalism teaches we have to interpret scriptures in light of the times in which they were written and then consider the times we are in. And change them to reflect the times of the day.

And that, I will not do.

If God does not change, then His word does not change, If it meant what it meant 2000 years ago, it still means the same today!

You have your views and opinionis, and I have mine, and it is a fact that mine match scriptures teachings. Not saying yours don't.

But I will not compromise what scriptures teach for you, the next person, or anybody.

And liberalism compromises scriptures for the sake of modernism.

And it seems that you and I have had this discussion more than once in similar threads in the Baptist area, so you should be well aquainted with my position.

As God does not change, neither do I in this particular area.

God Bless

Till all are one.

NorrinRadd · Jan 30, 2010

DeaconDean said:
Let me say this, I did not say I did not believe the people you mentioned did not exist, your putting words in my mouth.

No, actually what I did was reach a reasonable conclusion from the premises at hand:

1) Premise one: By your own words, you believe that theological liberalism and conservatism necessarily coincide across the board with social liberalism and conservatism respectively.

2) Premise two: The men I named hold to theologically conservative views, but also to one particular view deemed to be socially liberal.

3) Conclusion: These men cannot possibly exist.

When people say that it is perfectly acceptable to ordain women into the minstry such as pastors of the church, then they are liberal, and their actions do not match with what scriptures states.

That is of course a matter of interpretation -- just as above, where according to your interpretation, I was "putting words in your mouth."

"Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." -Rev. 2:4 (KJV)

Hmm, provocative. One could almost suspect that's intended as a subtle way to question my Christianity. *wags finger*

(Now inserting my words from the earlier post for context)
So you believe scholars like Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, and P. B. Payne do not really exist; that is, it is intrinsically impossible for one to hold to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, affirm the deity and virgin birth of Christ and the historical reality of Scriptural miracles, and yet arrive at the socially "liberal" conclusion that God does not intend any sort of gender-based hierarchy, in home, church, or anywhere else?

What do the scriptures teach? Yes they do, are you saying that we should throw that away as an antiquated belief from 2 millennia ago?

I'm not sure what that reply has to do with what I wrote. The men I cited hold to inerrancy, the authority of Scripture, etc. AND YET they also believe that God does not believe in male-only leadership. AND they base that belief on Scripture.

Seems to me that I read somewhere:

"For I am the LORD, I change not;" -Mal. 3:6 (KJV)

If God does not change, and scriptures are the word of God, then if God does not change, then His word the scriptures do not change.

Which words? The ones where Jesus told the Twelve to take staves on their journey, or the ones where He told them NOT to take staves? The ones where Paul laid down "rules" governing tongues and prophecy, or the cases in Acts that universally "broke" those "rules"?

Yet liberalism teaches we have to interpret scriptures in light of the times in which they were written and then consider the times we are in. And change them to reflect the times of the day.

And that, I will not do.

If God does not change, then His word does not change, If it meant what it meant 2000 years ago, it still means the same today!

Umm... Have you ever taken even a high school language course? Seriously. "Change" is part of the very nature of human language. That's part of the reason we need to update translations every so often.

You have your views and opinionis, and I have mine, and it is a fact that mine match scriptures teachings. Not saying yours don't.

But I will not compromise what scriptures teach for you, the next person, or anybody.

And liberalism compromises scriptures for the sake of modernism.

And it seems that you and I have had this discussion more than once in similar threads in the Baptist area, so you should be well aquainted with my position.

We have indeed butted heads before, but I don't *think* it was in the Baptist area. More likely here, in the Conservative area, or maybe in one of the Theology areas.

But I'm sure we'll do so again. We are fundies, after all, and it is in our "militant" nature to be argumentative.

Gregory Thompson · Jan 30, 2010

It is intriguing that when the law is discussed the root of all commandments (written clearly in scripture) is not even mentioned as a starting point . i find that interesting .

i also found a few other things interesting but .. i'll just continue observing silently .

bless .

TimRout · Feb 1, 2010

Allow me to stimulate the discussion a bit. Since it seems that a fair number of contributors believe a conservative evangelical can nevertheless favor the ordination of women to senior church leadership, perhaps we need to examine the hermeneutic mechanisms they employ.

If one chooses to interpret passages like 1 Tim. 2:9-15 as antediluvian, by what consistent rational means does one apply any Scripture to a contemporary context?

DeaconDean · Feb 1, 2010

NorrinRadd said:
We are fundies, after all, and it is in our "militant" nature to be argumentative.

If your arguing for the ordination of women to the ministry which you have been doing, then technically, doesn't that make you a liberal?

You agree with the liberal position on this point?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Izdaari Eristikon · Feb 1, 2010

DeaconDean said:
If your arguing for the ordination of women to the ministry which you have been doing, then technically, doesn't that make you a liberal?

You agree with the liberal position on this point?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hmm. So, if a person agrees with one position you consider liberal, even though that issue is not part of the historic "five fundamentals" and also not part of the FF SoF, that person is a liberal? And even though the position in question is held by some scholars (such as Fee) who are far from liberal? :o

Gregory Thompson · Feb 1, 2010

Part of the context of fundamentalism is that it was part of a group that saw all the social changes happening in the early 1900s and decided to put a stop to the tap . and staticize their interpretation of the bible to avoid further corruption of what was hoped to be a passing fad in the social stream of society .

so some interpretations . no matter how illustrative from scripture they may be . unless they conform to the image of fundamentalism . and are supported by the actual instructions of the bible . and does not present God as saying yes and no on the topic assuming infallibility in the fundamentalist sense . then they also are denied admittance . being called liberal .. or generous . perhaps implying too generous by the connotation of the way it is said or used in sentences .

DeaconDean · Feb 1, 2010

Izdaari said:
Hmm. So, if a person agrees with one position you consider liberal, even though that issue is not part of the historic "five fundamentals" and also not part of the FF SoF, that person is a liberal? And even though the position in question is held by some scholars (such as Fee) who are far from liberal? :o

Whether one agrees with me or not is not the issue here.

I know members here do not like my position on this issue. And in 5 years of debating here, I have not changed, nor reversed my position. And it is highly unlikely that I will because unlike some, I will not compromise the scriptures, not on this issue, nor others.

The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma.

But from what I am hearing from you, my guess is that you fully support "Christian Femininism".

Its just a guess mind you, and if I'm wrong then I sincerely apologize.

What the issue here is does the ordination of women to the ministry line up with what is stated in scripture.

Do you remember this: "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;"?

Or: "Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";"

Set presidence for me. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Ordination of Women

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

Senior Veteran

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Biblicist

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Similar threads