• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured A question to protestants

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by Prodigal Son returns, Aug 31, 2019.

  1. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,573
    Non-Denom
    The difficulty here is that many folks conflate gifts of the Spirit with roles in the church as well as in other spheres of life. Being in leadership is a role, not a gift.
     
  2. helmut

    helmut Member

    702
    +132
    Germany
    Protestant
    Married
    Name some.

    No. I look into the NT and evidence from the old times, while you took traditions from the 2nd century onward, more or less selected in later centuries to fit into the new outline of the then church.

    What I said about a church leader that has to be married can be backed up from the bible. It is the normal case assumed in the pastoral letters, while your distinction of laity and clergy is nowhere in the NT.
     
  3. helmut

    helmut Member

    702
    +132
    Germany
    Protestant
    Married
    She is the only deacon known by name in the NT. There is no male example. And we have female deacons mentioned in 1.Tim 3:11. The fact that we have more information about female deacons than of male deacons is not persuasive for the existence of female deacons?

    Where do you know it from? It is not in the NT.

    Yes, there are differences between NT and later times. It starts with making a difference between presbuteros and episkopos, two terms for the same role, and ends up at forbidding marriages of "clergymen". It is no surprise to find other deviations from NT times, whether conscious or as a sort of misunderstanding tradition.
     
  4. helmut

    helmut Member

    702
    +132
    Germany
    Protestant
    Married
    The prodigal son didn't mean orthodox church, but "orthodox" in the sense of "correct teaching", or even "lutheran orthodoxy". While in virtually any "revival" (including reformation) the situation of women was strengthened, orthodox Lutheranism and orthodox Calvinism did not allow woman to become pastors.
     
  5. helmut

    helmut Member

    702
    +132
    Germany
    Protestant
    Married
    That's not true for every instance. Some may drift away out of ignorance. Even moves that are honestly intended as moves away from the "world" can be moves away from what the Bible teaches.
     
  6. helmut

    helmut Member

    702
    +132
    Germany
    Protestant
    Married
    Whether the distinction of roles and gifts can be mantained in the light of the NT, theologicans disagree.

    So what you think as "conflating" may either be another way of delimiting between the two categories, or it may be real conflating. And the position that this "conflating" is the true way to understand the NT cannot be disproved. At best you can show it is only an option among other ways to understand Scripture.
     
  7. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +4,554
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    I don't know about that; some can lead and some can't. Some are born leaders, others are much happier behind the scenes.
    If someone is in the role of leader and has no ability to lead, make decisions, take a stand and inspire those in their team/office/congregation, people soon know about it. Maybe you have never met bad leaders, or suffered from bad leadership? Some people want the high positions because of the status, and/or money involved; but they have no ability to do the job.
    Same with the other gifts; would someone call themselves, or take a role as, an evangelist, without a gift for evangelism?

    Those God calls, he equips for service.
    It's possible that someone who has never led/evangelised/preached etc, or wanted to, is called to do just that - God will then give them the ability to do so.
     
  8. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +4,554
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    :oldthumbsup:
    Some people quote the verse which says that a deacon must be the husband of one wife, and say, "there you are, a woman cannot have a wife; a deacon must be a man".
    If they are taking that verse literally, a deacon/overseer MUST have a wife, and, in later verses, children too. How do catholics get around that?
     
  9. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,484
    Anglican
    Married
  10. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,484
    Anglican
    Married
    In Acts 6, seven men are named as having been chosen by the church to be deacons, including he who is probably the best-known deacon of all time, Stephen.
     
  11. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,573
    Non-Denom
    Of course there are many in leadership who ought not to be. The fact that they are bad leaders is not because they do not possess any "gift of leadership" but that they fail to meet the biblical qualifications for a leader as given in passages such as I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In both passages there is no mention of any such thing as a "gift of leadership"; rather, leadership is couched in terms of a man's desire to become an elder. The catch-phrase "Those God calls, he equips for service." which is extremely popular, is of modern origin and its biblical base is indirect, at best.
     
  12. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +4,558
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.

    If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).

    So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.

    So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.

    And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.

    When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.

    Radical change, at that moment.

    This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.

    In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.

    Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.

    Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.

    So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.

    They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.

    And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...

    Does that make sense?

    Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.

    You and me -- all of us.

    Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.

    So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.

    If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.

    Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.

    Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.

    @Hazelelponi
    @Athanasius377
    @Albion
    @Chadrho
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  13. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +4,554
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Maybe in some cases; but 1 Timothy 3 says that an overseer must be able to control his children and see that they obey him. I doubt that anyone who has been ordained and later finds that they are not able to have children would be either dismissed from their post or told that they were a bad leader because they did not fulfil all the criteria in 1 Tim 3.

    So does that make the criteria that we have now too strict/unnecessary - you don't have to be called to be an elder, you just need to want to be one?

    It may be a modern phrase, but it is true.
    On our own, and in our own strength, we may have no ability to do whatever we believe God is asking us to do. That is the time to do it, because then we can rely on God and not ourselves. Someone who can do a task with their eyes closed will not need to trust God - they have the skill.
    And I know someone for whom that saying was true. Friend of mine has told us a few times that he is a terrible speaker in public; if he HAS to do it he gets tongue tied, stammers etc - yet he is a brilliant preacher, preaches without notes and would do so every week if he could.

    Moses, David and Jeremiah, to name but a few, probably said the same thing.
     
  14. public hermit

    public hermit Well-Known Member Supporter

    681
    +733
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    I think the way you have framed our freedom in relation to the strong and the weak is on point. How we use our freedom depends on the context and those who might be affected beneficially or adversely by it. The examples you use of how Paul seems to shift his position in context is important. He was all things to all people. If we take a rigid view of the apostle's teachings, we are not able to exercise our freedom in the Spirit of Christ, and invariably we will cause harm. The law of love reigns supreme, as it was embodied by our Lord. How many examples did he give us of a misuse of the law-humans were not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for humans, and so on? Why would God give us the Spirit if not to discern in context the application of love, much less the application of an apostle's teachings?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  15. Athanasius377

    Athanasius377 Is a little right of Atilla the Hun Supporter

    823
    +921
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution

    I am not sure how to respond because though I read this post no less than five times I still do not understand the point you were trying to make.
     
  16. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +4,558
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Sorry! I do think it won't make sense without reading through Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians 8 as part of what is said, and one needs to be familiar with how the epistles tell slaves to remain slaves (several instances), but then later to seek their freedom if possible, and then the amazing letter to Philemon -- all of these are part of the meaning I was talking about. After we have read all of these, we begin to see why slaves were told to remain slaves, and then latter an opposite instruction is given. It begins to make sense, and then we also learn how, when, why and what next about other questions, including the way women are to be in the church even (*), which depends on the actual effect on others in the church, as part of how we gain freedoms in Christ, but not freedom that we can do without regard to others.

    -------
    *- (women weren't told to be silent for no reason at all, but for a definite reason, which we can learn by this wide reading in scripture)
     
  17. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +2,676
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It looks like he’s referring to the Orthodox Church. I mean a person doesn’t typically refer to a Calvinist or Lutheran Church as being Orthodox.
     
  18. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +3,487
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    While I already believe it is scriptural in every capacity for women to participate fully in ALL functions of ministry, I had never considered this particular point in the way you've presented it, but it makes a great deal of sense and is also consistent when looking at the entirety of scripture as a whole.
     
  19. Athanasius377

    Athanasius377 Is a little right of Atilla the Hun Supporter

    823
    +921
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I am familiar with the scripture you quoted. So I will come right out and ask you, what is your position and how does 1 cor 8 and rom 14 and Phil fit? Be specific because your clarification was less of a word salad than the first but a word salad none the less. I am not trying to be offensive rather pointing out the posts lack category distinctions thus making it difficult to understand your point(s).
     
  20. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +4,558
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Ok, to better communicate clearly, it will help if I understand just what part I'm not communicating well, and one thing I think would help is to find out if you yourself think you should literally give up eating meat if vegetarian that is weak in faith joins your congregation and invites you to his house, and you invite him at some point -- do you think you should not eat meat around him? I'd guess you'd say yes, you'd go vegetarian around him and also at all places he'd normally hear of also(!) -- like at any other gathering involving members of the church he'd get to know and hear about -- you do this for his sake, because he needs this, being weak. Right? You would give up meat for his sake?

    And a different question, which may help me answer more clearly, what is your view of 1 Corinthians 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ?
    You'd want your wife to cover her hair, as needed, depending on the company?
    What are your own personal views about when women should wear a scarf or head covering -- always, at times, when?
     
Loading...