 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
kyle_hinson |
Link - I am sorry I misread and misrepresented you - that was not my intention. IN rereading your statement you said: "I do not believe slavery is sinful as such.
I do not believe genocide was always sinful in every case.
God's law is holy, just, and good.
I don't believe our society is required to have slavery. Marriage is different. If there are people with urges that could lead to fornication, there should be marriage. Our society can do fine without slavery. Paul told slaves, "but if thou canst be free, use it rather." But marriage is more fundamental. If our society had slavery, slaves should submit to their masters. The male/female distinction pre-resurrection is a little harder to do away with, nor is it desirable to do so."
I would still strongly argue against any reading of scripture that allows for even the possibility of slavery as existing in the Kingdom of God that should exist on earth as it does it heaven, and the idea that it is less desirable for the marginalization of women (I would stop using the word distinction, but I think that they are distinct in a non-marginalizing way), is a personal preference as far as I can see and the same argument could have been used by slave owners in the South prior to the civil war.
Bro Bob, I think you have misunderstood me completely. I am not wanting to replace scripture with opinion. I believe that the Bible is Gods inspired and authoritative word. But it still must be interpreted. If I can give a bad paraphrase of Dr. Thomas illustration, the Bible is like a gospel choir - thew choir is singing one harmonious song, but the individual singers at times may sound slightly dissonant from one another if singled out and not listened to in it's entirety. In the same way Christians are notorious for creating a cannon within the cannon and using that to judge other scriptures by. We can easily see this when it is reformed Christians "standing on the word" and creating a super-cannon of Paul's scriptures that seem to indicate double predestination or eternal security; but we are often ignorant of doing this ourself. And indeed, I do not believe it is even possible to have an unbiased reading of scripture this side of eternity - we all see through a dark glass. So, my suggesting was rather then trying to see which side can proof-text the best, we instead begin to look at what guidelines are being used so that we can at least be playing by the same rules of the same game. Not that we will find one way of interpreting scripture this way, but perhaps we can agree on what qualifies as legitimate interpretation's (plural). |
Member
Posts: 45
8/18/12 7:31 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Major... |
Aaron Scott |
I pity you. Really, I do.
The only reason you think that some of these positions are foolish and without merit is because you have not truly engaged them. ANYONE with a modicum of understanding knows that few doctrinal positions are "slam dunks." There are facets and aspects that can legitimately lead sincere people to differing conclusions.
Unfortunately, you never step in the ring. You are content to hurl insults from the sidelines. And that is where I will leave you until you actually grow up and get inside the ring. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/18/12 8:18 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Major... |
mytimewillcome |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I pity you. Really, I do.
The only reason you think that some of these positions are foolish and without merit is because you have not truly engaged them. ANYONE with a modicum of understanding knows that few doctrinal positions are "slam dunks." There are facets and aspects that can legitimately lead sincere people to differing conclusions.
Unfortunately, you never step in the ring. You are content to hurl insults from the sidelines. And that is where I will leave you until you actually grow up and get inside the ring. |
 Exactly |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3661
8/18/12 1:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| kyle_hinson wrote: | | I would still strongly argue against any reading of scripture that allows for even the possibility of slavery as existing in the Kingdom of God that should exist on earth as it does it heaven, |
I forgive your mistating my view.
Is the idea of our being slaves of Christ and of God in the heavenly kingdom acceptable to you? With that in mind, I wouldn't rule out slavery in heaven, since Christ is Lord.
As far as the post of mine you quoted, if the apostles told masters to be fair to their slaves, and did not teach it was a sin for them to own slaves, it doesn't make sense for us to add to the scriptures and say it was sin for those masters to own slaves. Some people say that those slave owners could not have love in their hearts, yet we known from scripture that Philemon did, even though he owned slaves. The apostles taught some things that were radical, even life-threatening for the people who followed them. Christians were killed for not burning incense to the emporer and other things like that. Why couldn't they also tell Christian masters they all had to free their slaves, and tell slaves to run away from their masters, if it were sinful and intolerable in the sight of God. They had a different society and a different legal system back then.
God even spoke words through his prophet in the Old Testament that specifically allowed slavery and gave regulations for taking captives from war as slaves. There were regulations for marrying a slave. Israel, having been slaves could have been very receptive to a society without any slavery at all, but that isn't what God gave them. He did command that they not return run-away slaves, so one might argue the system was almost voluntary.
God also outlawed polygamy, but I can see a lot clearer case to condemn polygamy based on Christ's interpretation of Genesis in Matthew 19, than a case to condemn all slave owners in past epochs as sinners. I am not for reinstituting slavery. Frankly, I don't know anyone who would line up to volunteer to be part of the first batch of slaves. The Bible says, "If thou canst be free, use it rather." It is good not to be a slave, and it was a righteous act to redeem someone out of slavery, IMO, back when there was slavery.
Slavery is a good illustration though. It is something that most Americans find completely abhorrent and intolerable, that God found tolerable in scripture and that the apostles did not condemn as sinful to participate in. It illustrates how our own thinking can not line up with the word of God. The difficulty we have with the commands to Israel to wipe out Amalek and the seven nations do the same thing.
Preachers make much of Saul's disobedience, as well they should. His disobedience was to refuse to completely carry out the act of genocide--or the steps toward genocide--that the LORD commanded, and his refusal to slaughter animals when doing so would not directly benefit the people materially. I think it is good for people to consider the weight of what Saul was asked to do. It doesn't fit well with our cultural mindset if we think about it--even killing the cattle and not eating the meat is difficult. Honestly, I wouldn't volunteer for that task.
Some liberals will reject portions of scripture over this. Spong's comments on the exodus were that it is a great story if you are a Hebrew, but not so great a story if you are Egyptian. But the Bible teaches us that all God's judgments are just.
Do we put our cultural-derived ideas above the teaching of scripture. We live in a fairly egalitarian society. Feminism teaches us that having male leadership in the home, the church, and the government is oppressive to women. But we see all three in scripture. There are people who are so brainwashed by feminism that if they read where a man says that wives should submit to their husbands or hear a sermon about it, they think the man is oppressive to women. There are even people who say that a man quoting scriptures to his wife about women submitting is abuse. Now some abusers may know those verses (and sometimes those verses only) but a righteous godly man will want his Christian wife to submit to him as well, since he wants his wife to submit to God in all things.
When it comes to church leadership, feminism and egalitarian though conditions church people to think it is oppressive for there to be certain roles (or even one role) that is for men only. They find it completely intolerable and bigoted. But we know God doesn't think that way because He only had men serve as priests. God is not a bigot. He knows how He designed male and female and He knows how He wants things done, and He has a right to that as the Creator.
In the church, the Bible TWICE teaches that the bishop should be the husband of one wife. One of those passages comes right after Paul's discussion of men not teaching or usurping authority over a man and man being made first. If you interpret that controversial passage to be about husbands and wives rather than men and women per se, that still leads to a problem trying to argue for female bishops in chapter 3 verse 1. The bishop here is a father. The verses before talks about women as mothers. Through being a good husband and father the bishop demonstrates his merit.
And if Paul's issue is with wives teaching and usurping (or exercising, depending on how you translate/interpret it) authority their husbands, what would happen if you had women bishops? In their role, they would be teaching and exercising authority over their husbands.
As far as celibate bishops goes, if you want to argue for that, you can as an exception based on the fact that there were celibate men who appointed bishops, and that Christ Himself is a celibate male. Christ is not female, though, and neither were the apostles we see in scripture who appointed bishops, so that is not an argument for women bishops.
| Quote: | | and the idea that it is less desirable for the marginalization of women (I would stop using the word distinction, but I think that they are distinct in a non-marginalizing way), is a personal preference as far as I can see and the same argument could have been used by slave owners in the South prior to the civil war. |
I lost track a little of what you were saying with this argument. But we can't start from the place that American philosophy is right and we have to interpret the Bible through it. We should interpret ethics in American history from the foundation of scripture, including issues related to slavery and the Civil War-- if we care to consider such historical topics.
If the slave owners argued that the Old Testament had slavery and some of the regulations came from God Himself through a prophet, we have to concede that. If they argued that the apostles did not forbid slavery and told slave owners to be fair, we have to give them that.
If pre-Civil War slave owners had faith in Christ, we shouldn't say they were condemned to Hell. If Philemon could be righteous and own slaves, why couldn't some of them? Not all slave owners worked their slaves fingers to the bone, beat them to a bloody pulp, bread them like animals, and treated them inhumanely. No doubt, there was a lot of that. There were also many who worked along side them.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/18/12 4:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Here is a question:
If the way the apostles did it, and told others to do it works, why do it another way?
Is the way we do things Holy Ghost approved? People will claim it is, but the scripture indicates that what Paul and Barnabas did in appointing elders was approved by the Spirit.
In Acts 13-the Spirit tells the prophets and teachers to separate Paul to the work to which He had called them.
Chapters 13-14-- They preach, teach, and do miracles. Churches are formed.
Late in chapter 14. They appoint elders ('older men'/'senior men') in the churches.
End of chapter 14, they return to Antioch, having "where they had been committed to the grace of God(AS) for the work they had now completed.
Appointing elders was part of the work, and the Spirit had called them to the work. Doesn't this imply their appointing of elders was Spirit-approved?
If they had a certain way of appointing elders, shouldn't we follow that, instead of ideas of our own that may not be Spirit-approved? Even if you take a loose approach to interpreting the relevant scriptures on the subject (which I disagree with) doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution by follow a God-approved method?
And shouldn't we put the health, safety, and growth of the body above an individual's 'right' to be in a certain ministry?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/18/12 5:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| “a righteous godly man” |
dtgrant |
| Link wrote: | | There are even people who say that a man quoting scriptures to his wife about women submitting is abuse. Now some abusers may know those verses (and sometimes those verses only) but a righteous godly man will want his Christian wife to submit to him as well, since he wants his wife to submit to God in all things. |
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Perhaps “a righteous godly man” would have no need to quote scriptures to his Christian wife about submission, IF he is loving his wife as Christ loved the church. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/18/12 8:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: “a righteous godly man” |
Patrick Harris |
| dtgrant wrote: | | Link wrote: | | There are even people who say that a man quoting scriptures to his wife about women submitting is abuse. Now some abusers may know those verses (and sometimes those verses only) but a righteous godly man will want his Christian wife to submit to him as well, since he wants his wife to submit to God in all things. |
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Perhaps “a righteous godly man” would have no need to quote scriptures to his Christian wife about submission, IF he is loving his wife as Christ loved the church. |
I would say that any "a righteous godly man" that has to remind his wife or quote scriptures to her is not much of a Godly man. He's probably not demonstrating it.
Patrick |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/18/12 8:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
Link,
Question.
We seem so willing to give a great deal of leeway in the word of prophets and their accuracy.
Why are we so rigid on what we believe we understand about the qualifications to minister?
Maybe we are not as clear about those the Holy Ghost has approved as we believe? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/18/12 8:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: “a righteous godly man” |
Link |
Please note, there are a couple of posters I'm responding to.
| dtgrant wrote: |
Perhaps “a righteous godly man” would have no need to quote scriptures to his Christian wife about submission, IF he is loving his wife as Christ loved the church. |
I think we could easily hi-jack this thread if this continues beyond a comment or two. Feel free to start a 'Righteous godly man' thread with your previous message if you want to continue the dialogue.
But I think you are repeating a myth that is told in some pulpits, that if a man loves his wife as Christ loves the church, that his wife will automatically submit to him perfectly.
Doesn't Christ love the church perfectly? (Doesn't Christ love the church as Christ loves the church?-- a tautology since this is a logic thread.)
He does, but does the church submit to him perfectly? How many of those seven churches in Revelation were submitting to Christ perfectly? What did He have to correct them if they were perfect in their love? Can you blame Christ for having a lack of love because the churches were not submissive enough to Him?
Christian women are fallen human beings, too, in the process of being conformed to the image of Christ. The Bible tells believers to exhort one another daily. We are supposed to follow the example of Christ, who washes his wife with the water of the word. I don't see a problem with a husband teaching, sharing, or exhorting his family on any aspect of the Christian life. Even the so-called 'politically incorrect' verses about wives submitting to husbands are not off-topic. And I'd expect that wives who know the word might actually remind their husbands if they are being harsh or unloving or not honoring them as the scripture teaches, too.
Would you say that wives who remind their husbands not to be harsh, honor, and love them, only have to do it because they aren't submissive enough?
| Patrick Harris wrote: | | dtgrant wrote: | | Link wrote: | | There are even people who say that a man quoting scriptures to his wife about women submitting is abuse. Now some abusers may know those verses (and sometimes those verses only) but a righteous godly man will want his Christian wife to submit to him as well, since he wants his wife to submit to God in all things. |
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Perhaps “a righteous godly man” would have no need to quote scriptures to his Christian wife about submission, IF he is loving his wife as Christ loved the church. |
I would say that any "a righteous godly man" that has to remind his wife or quote scriptures to her is not much of a Godly man. He's probably not demonstrating it.
Patrick |
Patrick,
Your post on another thread seemed to show a bit of dislike for or disinterest in the inspired instructions through Paul about wives submitting to their husbands. Based on what you said, it doesn't sound like you give much credence to the idea of the wife submitting to her husband. Are you even trying to live that way? If not, how would you know enough about the topic to comment? If your wife is perfect when it comes to submission and it's not an issue for her, not everyone is your wife.
My wife and I are frail human beings like anyone else. But if she commits a sin whether in this area or some other one in her life, or if she is doing something really unwise, and I see it, I am obligated to point it out to her. If she sees me do something she considers sinful or unwise, she'll point that out, too. As long as we do with with love, wisdom, and the proper honor and/or respect it is a really good thing. I really don't see how one can read the scriptures that have to do with exhorting and admonishing one another and come away with the idea that a Christian couple should not do that.
Btw, I'll just start another thread with my response to dtgrant if anyone wants to respond on this, so the thread won't get hi-jacked any further.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/18/12 11:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: “a righteous godly man” |
Patrick Harris |
I will choose not to respond to all of that, based this remark.
| Quote: | | Your post on another thread seemed to show a bit of dislike for or disinterest in the inspired instructions through Paul about wives submitting to their husbands |
We have a different Idea of a Christian worldview and family.
But thats ok, I see no reason that we have to have the same Biblical view.
I know you think all this discussion is great, however, nothing to change my mind as been offered.
Last edited by Patrick Harris on 8/19/12 1:01 pm; edited 3 times in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/19/12 7:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
I will add one more thought.
I have a wonderfully Godly wife, who is a significant part of my ministry.
Not once have I had to correct or rebuke her. She lives it.
I'm done. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/19/12 9:43 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Patrick Harris wrote: | I will add one more thought.
I have a wonderfully Godly wife, who is a significant part of my ministry.
Not once have I had to correct or rebuke her. She lives it.
I'm done. |
Doesn't matter...
ROTFL!!!! |
Bless your heart.  |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/19/12 1:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| dtgrant wrote: | | In the same way Christians are notorious for creating a cannon within the cannon and using that to judge other scriptures by. We can easily see this when it is reformed Christians "standing on the word" and creating a super-cannon of Paul's scriptures that seem to indicate double predestination or eternal security; but we are often ignorant of doing this ourself. And indeed, I do not believe it is even possible to have an unbiased reading of scripture this side of eternity - we all see through a dark glass. So, my suggesting was rather then trying to see which side can proof-text the best, we instead begin to look at what guidelines are being used so that we can at least be playing by the same rules of the same game. Not that we will find one way of interpreting scripture this way, but perhaps we can agree on what qualifies as legitimate interpretation's (plural). |
How do you think the 'canon within the canon' idea fits with this issue?
It seems to me the thread was started with a post that put a verse in Galatians above all other verses related to the topic-- and interpretation from the Galatians verse was taken to refer to far more than the point Paul actually made in the passage.
The Galatians passage tells us that whoever is baptized into Christ has put on Christ. If we are wearing Christ, there is no male or female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. But the context is in being heirs according to the promise.
Christ is male. Christ is a Jew. Christ is free. If we wear Christ, we don't have to worry about being in the weaker role of being female (remember the weaker vessel verse), Gentile, or a slave. But again, the context is being heirs according to the promise.
Specific verses on the subject do differentiate based on gender. Wives are to submit to husbands. Slaves are also told to submit to masters.
The fact that Paul's instructions for appointing bishops is repeated twice, for two church planters, ministering in two cultural contexts is telling. Paul Paul wrote 'the husband of one wife' in Ephesus because of a very specific issue related to pagan priestesses, why did he write to Titus ministering in Crete to appoint the husband of one wife? And why are the other requirements so similar? Isn't this evidence for a universal standard for bishops that extends across cultural contexts?
Traditionally, Christians thought they had to have some kind of divine authority to appoint a bishop. Doesn't that make sense? If we as Christians who claim scripture as our authority appeal to these verses, we have some authority behind our actions-- appointing bishops according to scripture. But if we make up our own ideas that don't come from God, where is our authority for that?
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 8/20/12 5:04 am; edited 2 times in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/19/12 7:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| Link wrote: | Patrick,
I'm glad to hear your wife lives godly. Mine does, too, but I can't say she never makes mistakes. If she's reached a point where she doesn't sin any more, that is great, and you are a truly blessed husband, too. |
Not what I said.
She's not perfect or without sin, however, its not my place to immediately rebuke her when she does something that might be sin.
Note the the word " immediately". |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/19/12 7:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Patrick,
Okay, thanks for adding the clarification. That makes more sense, IMO.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/20/12 5:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Declaring Victory... |
Aaron Scott |
| OK, I am now officially declaring victory on this topic...and then retreating. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/21/12 7:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| For me, at the end of the day ... |
Poimen |
Equality of essence does not necessarily mean equality of function or responsibility (i.e. administrative bishop vs presiding bishop).
At the end of the day we come right back to the Creation model. God made man, and He made for him a suitable companion -- woman. She was a literal extension of man, his equal and assistant at the same time. Theirs was a complementary relationship without any defilement of sin or it's cursed interference and disharmony to this otherwise perfect union as originally given.
Matthew 19:4-5
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:21-24
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
1 Corinthians 11:8-12
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
For me, this conclusively demonstrates that marriage, biblically, is complimentarian in nature. The implications of which preclude women serving as head over men in the church as well.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Last edited by Poimen on 8/21/12 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/21/12 8:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: For me, at the end of the day ... |
Link |
| Poimen wrote: |
For me, this conclusively demonstrates that marriage, biblically, is complimentarian in nature. The implications of which preclude woman serving as head over men in the church as well. |
The fact that Paul discusses the roles of men and women as he does before the 'husband of one wife' verse would seem to support your argument.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/21/12 9:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: For me, at the end of the day ... |
Poimen |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: | | Poimen wrote: | | his assistant |
... Where do you get that idea? I mean, aside from tradition? |
Well, from the Bible of course. Some other terms that may (or may not) be more palatable are assistor, supporter, aider, succorer, and helper. In fact, that is the meaning of the hebrew word `ezer, translated "help meet" in the AV -- literally, "one who helps".
This is further substantiated by the fact that woman was made for the man, taken from the man, given to the man, and was one with the man. She was created to be his life's companion, a suitable one to be alongside him. She was created to be his help meet, just as the church is to be for Christ.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/21/12 11:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: For me, at the end of the day ... |
Poimen |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: |
But, your success ends there. ... Your doing so comes not from the Bible but from your Hellenized interpretation of the Bible, and specifically of the word ezer. |
No, my use of the term simply notes the meaning of the term along with the function for which woman was created. That comes from the Bible, both the terminology and the context, as presented in the whole of my previous replies. You may differ with it, and you may do so from a biblical premise as well. Though one might argue you are being influenced in your interpretation by feministic philosophies prevalent in modern society and culture. Regardless, you can no doubt make an argument from Scripture to the contrary of my position, just as I have toward the egalitarian one.
Now, if you were to do so, we can't both be right. However, we can both be wrong. The Bible is right just the same.
That said, I am unconvinced by the arguments against complementarianism. And I remain persuaded that is the Biblical teaching on the subject, as the references I cited above amply point out IMO. Complementary equality, to me, is as plain as the nose on another's face.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/12 1:13 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
