Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It depends on whether the Bible is one's arbiter, I'd have to say.Even if women were NOT deacons, or overseers, in the early church, because they were used to a male society, that doesn't mean that God can't, and won't, call them to ordination today.
It depends on whether the Bible is one's arbiter, I'd have to say.
If it is NOT divine revelation, NOT God's word (as almost all churches say it is and point to the Bible's own testimony to that effect), then we mortals can believe just about anything we want.
I would guess that the Pharisees in Jesus' day would have said "God coming to earth as a human? That's not in Scripture; he's never done that before, so we reject it." Or "human beings can be temples of the Holy Spirit? No; Scripture and our tradition tell us that God lived in the temple - in the Holy of Holies that could only be entered once a year by special people."
Guess away, then. We can all speculate on what might have been in Scripture but is not.
All right, but you compared two things that are not comparable. What the Pharisees might have said about the OT and it alone does not address anything we have been discussing about the Christian ministry.
If that is outlined in Scripture, then yes. The change of Saturday to Sunday as the principle day of worship is an example. Both are standard at certain times, but the change is documented in Scripture. This is much different from any of us supposing that God must be in favor of keeping up with the times, etc., therefore we are going to do X because it just seems right according to contemporary social standards.God has worked in new ways over the centuries.
If that is outlined in Scripture, then yes. The change of Saturday to Sunday as the principle day of worship is an example. Both are standard at certain times, but the change is documented in Scripture.
This is much different from any of us supposing that God must be in favor of keeping up with the times, etc., therefore we are going to do X because it just seems right according to contemporary social standards.
This does not answer my question. I pretty understood your distinction, but why should the people you listed above act without an ordination?head of or member of the church's governing board, Sunday School superintendent, lay minister, and so on.
This does not only hold for pastors, it holds for "member of the church's governing board, Sunday School superintendent, lay minister, and so on" likewise. So again: Why do you not want to ordain these persons?Ordained is just the act. But when we say "called" we do not mean that the person wanting to be a pastor simply has to show up and claim that they felt a call from God.
In that point, we agree. There is too much left to the decision of the individual. We need (local) churches that ask questions like "We have 10 talented and blessed workers, should we not send one of them into the mission field?" or "The christian work X needs a new supervisor, should Mr. B not leave our ministry and go there?" (this is, of course, a simplification, but you will surely understand the issue).The church has to issue the call. That is evident in Scripture. It's a function of the "priesthood of all believers" that people refer to often. It doesn't mean that every one of us is a pastor/minister/priest, but that the authority resides in the congregation or classis, etc. which then delegates it to the individual.
There is a difference between things the early church did not because it was impossible to do them, like using computers, and things which could have been done, like Sunday schools, that were not done. The way the Table of the Lord (is suppose this is the correct translation of my fellows call Eucharist in Germany) is handled is a good example of changes that have taken place. The precise distinction between clergy and laiety is another instance.So if you are going to condemn women's ordination because you do not see it practised in Scripture or early church history; they, to be consistent, you also have to condemn the use of computers/technology, having Sunday school classes for the kids, the way Holy Communion is practised - and probably a umber of other things too.
This is a dangerous line of arguments. Experience may give us an impulse to rethink - looking again into the Bible and check what Scripture really teaches, but "he cannot have" means we are following a pre-judice, not willing to obey Scripture if it doesn't say what we want to hear.Both sides rightly say that God will not go against his word. But one side say "so therefore the women are wrong - all of them", whereas the other side say, "so as this is what God IS doing today, he cannot have forbidden it in Scripture."
But all these new way were foretold: In the Torah, God promised prophets like Mose, so Elija and latter prophets were foretold (though the prophet like Mose came later), the new covenant was foretold.God has worked in new ways over the centuries.
This is more to the point. God never said that the Bible should be chained and only used in a translation unintelligible to the people. This is a change that reverts only a former change (banning the laity from the Bible because reading the Bible lead to "heresies").Once, the Bible was in Latin, was kept chained to a lectern and was available to only a few; now we have many different translations, in different formats and different languages, to reach as many people as possible.
Even in Judaism, things are changing; once women could not take part in the synagogue services but had to listen; now, women can be Rabbis.
This is a dangerous line of arguments. Experience may give us an impulse to rethink - looking again into the Bible and check what Scripture really teaches, but "he cannot have" means we are following a pre-judice, not willing to obey Scripture if it doesn't say what we want to hear.
I feel closer to those who think women cannot preach, and remain in that error, than with those who let them preach because they take Scripture lightly (or "critically", or whatever this is labelled). I don't say you belong to the latter group, I only say your wording comes close to them.
As you certainly know, I don't deny that. It's the line of arguments I am discomfort with.But this IS what God is doing; calling women to be ordained.
Sounds good, but in practice that means that instead to follow what other say Jesus has said, one follows a self-made interpretation of what Jesus has said.Why would anyone think that they must make a choice after struggling with trying to figure out which man-made branch of thought and belief they MUST choose? Why worry about having to follow any of them?
...
Why not simply be a follower of Christ Jesus, looking only to Him as your ultimate source.
Sounds good, but in practice this means the ultimate source is not Jesus directly, but a self-made interpretation of Jesus.Why not simply be a follower of Christ Jesus, looking only to Him as your ultimate source.
It is a difference whether you tell this to matured Christians or to new believers. A quite large deal of teaching of men stems from people who thought to listen directly to Jesus, but were deceived by their hearts, whether as inner light or as wrong assumption over what Jesus meant with His words.Once you grow into a mature believer who eats the meat, then 1 John 2:27 becomes an even more relevant statement and direction to ultimately seek the Spirit of the Lord for the grounding of your personally held beliefs.
We should not take words of pastors or other church leaders as the words of God, bur we are not just individuals standing alone before God. There is communion of saints, you can (and should) seek help from others, whether experts (in old languages, history, ...) that help to overcome popular misunderstandings, or a Christian who got some insight from the Holy Spirit. This is one reason why we should not leaver the meetings of the Church (Heb 10:25).This drives home the fact that you won't be able to stand before the Lord and say, "But Lord, that priest over there said that he had the power to call you down for daily sacrifice," or "But Lord, that pastor over there said that faith plus works is how we earn salvation..."
Sounds good, but in practice that means that instead to follow what other say Jesus has said, one follows a self-made interpretation of what Jesus has said.
Jesus made women to "evangelists" who told the Apostles (the Eleven!) about His resurrection. So it is OK to ordain women to teach the gospel. Does this mean that anyone who opposes ordained females to be one that does not follow Jesus?
One person alone is not capable to fully understand Scripture, unless he is fluent in Ancient Greek and Hebrew (and preferably ancient Aramaic as well), has a profound knowledge of the historical backgrounds of the Bible, always recognizes parallels and contrasts between Biblical passages, ...
We need one anther to help us understand the Words of Jesus and the Apostles, and even a completer layman in historical and "theological" disciplines will have some insight from the Spirit experts should listen to. This is part of "communion of saints" or "the universal priesthood".
I do, and because English is not my mother tongue, I know that the "you" in there is Plural, so the ones addressed are not an individual, but a congregation. It is always a body that is guided. Do you believe that, or do you prefer to stick to your own, English based, interpretation?Additionally, the fallacy in your analysis of what I said is the conclusion to which you gravitated. Failure to follow after the teachings and rudiments of man-made denominations does not automatically lead to personal, self-made interpretations. Do you not believe what scripture teaches in 1 John 2:27?
This is the way I understood your posting (of course, with: that anything which does not lead away from Churches is wrong), therefore I asked you. I told you one of the teachings of the NT (confirmed by what Jesus did), and if you really believes that deviation from Jesus in this point (i.e. non ordaining women) means not following Jesus. You did not answer it, and I can't perceive how broad or wide your view is. It sounds like "all churches are wrong, but I'm right, do like me".You really are going off the deep end with trying to legitimize the idea that not following one of the man-made (c)hurch organizations and/or denominations is a matter of being a free radical where all paths lead to heresy.
I know the difference. The churches out there are a concretion of the Church on a local level. As the churches in revelation, they are not perfect, some so bad that one should consider leaving them. But being outside any church, just an individual before God and nothing more, is against Scripture. Full-stop.Do you not realize the vast distinction between all those man-made (c)churches out there, and the (C)hurch, which is the TRUE body of Christ Jesus, and Him as her Head?
As I said: I believe what he is saying: Those who read and hear the letter (one reading, the others listening to him, all them addressed by "you", not "thou") are guided in the Spirit and have no need to be taught by John. Yet he writes this letter. What does this tell us? Certainly not we should leave the circle of Christians we are in.Then it sounds like you don't believe scripture in what it says in places like 1 John.
And you are free from that? Am I wrong when I suspect you read the "you in 1.Jn 2:27 as singular, though it is plural in the original?One thing those man-made organizations do is to twist scripture away from what it actually says
Goods given to the tabernacle, some of then in order to feed the priest. What does this regulation in a society with a great deal of barter economy mean in a 100&% money-based economy like we have today?All those false teachers of that doctrine fail to mention that the OT tithe never had anything to do with monetary, earned wages.
When I changed from the state church into a free church, one of the elders admonished me to tithe. I had previously decided to give them approx. 10% of my income, but after being almost pressed that way I decided to give only 40 Deutschmarks than 50. After a while, when I saw that tithing was not such a theme for this church (only of the elder, who happened to be the one who did the financial part of leading), I gave 50 DM. Long ago, but this may help you to understand me, I'm not as you read into my lines.Many institutional followers love talking about how faithful they are at tithing
Did I say this? No.but to say that we must remain bleeting sheeple under the tutelage of men who may or may not be right, and to follow them blindly
Changing a plural into a singular is definitely twisting.I'm sure there are many "interpretations" from men out there of that passage in 1 John, where they will twist it into a mangled heap, relegating it to some other meaning that does not remove any of the limelight from them.
It is certainly not from Him to send distrust into every church and their teachings. Of course we have the responsibility to check everything and let it be sifted by the Lord, but it has to be the Lord and not what we think the Lord might say. To see that difference is nothing a newborn Christian can do, he has to be nurtured with milk, then harder food, and this will be given to him from fellow Christians.The difference is that I accept responsibility for what I choose to believe by laying it all at the Feet of the Most High for Him to sift through and cast aside what is not of Him
In order to take that view, a person has to also say either that God has changed his mind OR that the Bible is not the revealed word of God after all. Most of us cannot do that. And if we could, what from the Bible could not be set aside using the same reasoning?Even if women were NOT deacons, or overseers, in the early church, because they were used to a male society, that doesn't mean that God can't, and won't, call them to ordination today.
We do, use and practice many things that were not done, or used, by the early church - like computers, av systems, electric organs, Sunday School and so on. If you're going to use the argument of "we can only do what the early church did", you'd have to drop all these things for a start; where do you see any of these in Scripture, or in use by the early church?
Not the ceremony, no, but the calling of someone to the office and the qualifications necessary for anyone to be called are.Then there is ordination itself which is not mentioned.
Strawman argument. I don't recall anyone saying that a certain college degree or course of study is a Scriptural requirement, nor is it relevant to the issue of the sex of the candidate anyway.Where is it written that Jesus said, "do this in memory of me - after you've spent 3 years at Bible college, 1 year as a deacon and then been ordained"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?