 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | That's the reason women ruled over them, but the comment presents the fact that women were ruling over the people in a negative light. It doesn't say, "The women rule over them--yippeeee." |
No, the negative light is about being defeated in battle. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 6:20 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Bonnie, oh, no you don't--ha! |
Link |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | You don't get to act like Athaliah proves your point. She doesn't (and, of course, I'm sure you know that). I mean, she DID murder all the other ascendants to the thrown (save the one that got away). I do not discount that she was leader for a period. I DO discount that she was for a single moment LEGITIMATE.
The PLAN does not appear to have ever been for a woman in leadership. So when we say that monarchs and priests are males, I do indeed need to clarify and note that they were the only LEGITIMATE holders of such offices.
You could say that Athaliah USURPED authority. But the authority was given to the males in the kingly line.
In any case, my apologies for not being clear. |
Israel was not to have a king that the Lord did not appoint-- and that goes back to the Law of Moses. Judah had the approved line of David for a long time. Israel did have a couple of kings that God appointed, Jeroboam I, and Jehu and his line, and perhaps some others.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 6:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Not only do I have to explain what I said, I have to explain what you said. ~sigh~
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: |
No, Link starts out with a hypothetical and then says it would be foolish to use Galatians 3:28 to argue against the hypothetical. |
Where do you get that from my post.
|
| Link wrote: | | If Paul had written, "I do not permit a Gentile to teach or usurp authority over a Jew...The bishop must be Jewish", [that's the hypothetical] then it would be pretty foolish to use Galatians 3:28 to argue for Gentiles in leadership[that would be against the hypothetical]. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 6:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I do think the fact that the idea of female bishops is so new, and the fact that we are surrounded by a culture that has embraced feminist and various other egalitarian concepts has a lot to do with opinions on the matter. (The idea of women in formal pastoral ministry predates feminism, although it may have risen in popularity along side women's suffrage and similar movements. Feminism's influence on our culture, no doubt, has helped aid the popularity of ordaining women in these types of roles.) |
On the other hand, the oppression of women throughout millennia could explain why some still want to keep her in her place.
Exploring motivations for beliefs opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 6:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Your interpretation of my statement was rather cryptic. It looked to me like you were saying that I said you can't use Galatians 3:28 to argue against something hypothetical.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 6:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
On the other hand, the oppression of women throughout millennia could explain why some still want to keep her in her place.
Exploring motivations for beliefs opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. |
Motivations for beliefs is another can of worms on both sides. I'm sure plenty of women have been oppressed throughout women. If a society in which wives are expected to submit to their husbands and the government is run predominantly by male leadership is not necessarily oppressive. Neither is having all the land inherited by males, assuming there are male heirs. The Torah, which was revealed by God as laws for the nation of Israel, is an example.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 6:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I'm not reading the history of bishops since the first century into the text. Taking some scholar's guesswork about why Paul wrote what he does in Ephesians-- ignoring the fact that he bases his arguments on creation-- really doesn't sit well with me. |
Sticking strictly with the Bible text is fine. But it still leaves some questions.
If Paul in one place doesn't allow the women to teach, but in another scripture we see Aquila and Priscilla both teaching Apollos, you can't make a blanket statement that a woman may never teach a man.
If Paul in one place tells women to keep silent in the church, but in another tells them to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, then you can't make a blanket statement that a woman must always keep silent in church.
If Paul in one place says that Adam was not deceived, but Eve was and therefore in transgression; and in another place we read of Adam's transgression, we realize we have to take both scriptures into account.
If being first formed gives precedence, we know that the animals were created before man, but we know mankind was given dominion over the animals, so we know that a blanket statement of "first formed" can't be made. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 7:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Bonnie,
You mention many valid points. But I do think there is something to be said for the fact that Paul's statement that he does not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, followed by support from the creation account right before saying a bishop must be the husband of one wife is relevant to the issue of whether a woman should be a bishop in the church.
And by 'bishop' I mean roughly what a lot of people mean when they say 'pastor.' These men are generally referred to as 'elders.' (If we look up the Greek word translated 'feed' the Bible tells us the elders pastor, too. Acts 20:28.)
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 7:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | You mention many valid points. But I do think there is something to be said for the fact that Paul's statement that he does not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, followed by support from the creation account right before saying a bishop must be the husband of one wife is relevant to the issue of whether a woman should be a bishop in the church. |
Sure, but the question remains as to whether that was specifically for Ephesus. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 7:21 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Now, Bonnie... |
Aaron Scott |
I'm not used to having to use so much mental firepower to argue. It's starting to hurt--and I have IMMENSE capacity for mental firepower (SMILE).
This is one reason that earlier I said that even if we go ONLY ON THE TEXT, we are coming to different conclusions, so we shouldn't be afraid to go with the Spirit.
And if we STILL come to different conclusions, then let each side proceed in good faith until the Lord or circumstances show them different, "working out" our own salvation, so to speak.
If this was one of those really serious doctrinal issues (there are OH, SO FEW--alas!), it would be one thing, but I don't think God would lose any sleep if women were in leadership...I also don't believe He's a bit upset with them not being in leadership. That is, He will work with sincere hearts.
But it may be asked, "If you don't think God really cares, then why do YOU?" To which I reply that "all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient." We can do and go as we desire, but that doesn't mean it's God ideal. And with 6,000 years of history, plenty of scriptures, and so forth, I think the preponderance is heavily in favor of the model the Church of God uses now.
Yet if anyone will disagree, let them be persuaded in their own hearts. I know that no one has the scripture to prove the case for change, but at the same time, maybe it's not something that needs to be proven. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/17/12 7:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | ...but I don't think God would lose any sleep if... |
Now, that's one phrase I don't think I'll be able to figure out.  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 7:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| See? |
Aaron Scott |
| I told you my firepower was starting to redline--HA! |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/17/12 8:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
kyle_hinson |
A couple thoughts:
First, Junia WAS a female apostle. We gotta deal with it.
Second, Philip had for prophetess daughters.
Third, Priscilla AND Aquila taught Apollos, who was already advanced in learning, so you have a woman at least team teaching a man in what today would be seminary level education.
So you have 3 of your big 5 leadership gifts of Eph 4:11 right there. When you add that with Paul's clarification in 1 Cor 11:11-12 it certainly looks like there is more room for female leadership then we typically admit.
As far as the early church not allowing bishops, lets also remember that this is the same era that saw a marked increase in top-down bureaucracy and a decrease in the charismatic gifts. We like to point out that the Montonists kept the gifts of the Spirit alive, but
A. if it wasn't for Tertullian they would have been written off as heretics
B. they allowed women in ministry.
So while I respect the early church, we can only go so far down that road.
The truth is there are texts in the same book of the Bible, much less the same testament that could be used to argue either side of the point. The question is not; "are we interpreting the Bible?", but rather "how are we interpreting it."
To use a grammatical analogy, complementarians will see the restrictive passages as being the "noun" and the liberative passages as being the "adjective" that might give light to the control passages, but ultimately are subordinate to them. People like myself view the same passages almost in reveres.
While I can't go as far as Aron seem to want to go in bringing in the human as interpreter, we cannot ignore the fact that scripture does NOT interpret scripture without a HUMAN agent, hopefully in community, listening to the leading of the Spirit. To not realize that this is the case gives way to a hermeneutic that is ignorant of it's own bias (which we all have).
In fact, in another thread Link stated that he felt slavery and genocide were permissible in the New covenant. This comes from the same reading of scripture that marginalizes women, at least he has the guts to admit the full implications of his reading of scripture, but really - is this what JESUS was advocating as the standard of his kingdom.
So perhaps a more fruitful dialogue would be about how we go about creating legitimate interpretive frameworks, and less about "what does the Bible say." |
Member
Posts: 45
8/17/12 9:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| kyle_hinson wrote: |
In fact, in another thread Link stated that he felt slavery and genocide were permissible in the New covenant. |
What in the world are you talking about?
I was talking about specific cases genocide in the OLD TESTAMENT. Clearly God commanded it, even if it is not considered PC to talk about it.
You should be careful how you represent people.
As far as slavery, the Bible shows that it existed in the first century. Philemon was a slave owner. He also had love for the brethren. He lived under the new covenant. That's difficult for people from our culture, but it does illustrate that we can rely on our cultural intuition to determine what is right and wrong in God's site.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 9:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
| kyle_hinson wrote: | A couple thoughts:
First, Junia WAS a female apostle. We gotta deal with it" |
LOL, this is 100% pure conjecture . Congratulations, you just eliminated yourself from serious debate on the subject. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
8/17/12 9:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bro Bob |
| Quote: | a more fruitful dialogue would be about how we go about creating legitimate interpretive frameworks, and less about "what does the Bible say."
|
More "We go about creating"
Less "what does the Bible say"
VERY well said. Out of the abundance of the heart, the fingers type. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
8/17/12 10:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Da Sheik wrote: | | kyle_hinson wrote: | A couple thoughts:
First, Junia WAS a female apostle. We gotta deal with it" |
LOL, this is 100% pure conjecture . Congratulations, you just eliminated yourself from serious debate on the subject. |
In English 'of note among the apostles' is ambiguous as to whether they are notable apostles, or nonapostles who are of not among the apostles.
I asked a retired chair of Classics (Greek and Latin) about it and he said it was ambiguous in Greek, too.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 11:21 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Proverbs 18:13
He who answers before listening--that is his folly and his shame.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 11:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| (L) |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I asked a retired chair of Classics (Greek and Latin) about it and he said it was ambiguous in Greek, too. |
I asked John Chrysostom, and he said,
"O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111/Page_555.html |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 11:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
I think I've read the Chrysostom quote before. If it is ambiguous, he still could have interpreted that way, just many as people do in English.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/18/12 7:12 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
