 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Major... |
Aaron Scott |
I agree with you point...to a point. However, while you are trying to argue the finer details, it should be pointed out that the apparent expectation was that bishops and elders be MEN.
Let me put it this way: Do you think Paul had women in mind in this passage? If he did, then why are there no requirements for THEM?
The larger point is not the particulars of being a bishop, I don't think--since that would apparently have excluded Paul himself, and even Jesus--but rather that MEN were the pool from which candidates were drawn.
It would have been very, very simple to include women in this passage. But Paul didn't.
Moreover, this is but one passage in the scriptures that implies men to be chosen for leadership.
The apostles were all men.
When candidates were drawn to take Judas' place (even though I don't think this was a Spirit-led thing), MEN were chosen.
When candidates were needed to wait on tables, they chose out seven MEN.
All the known leaders of the early church were men. Women in leadership seem to be either slightly mentioned (if at all), or mentioned in a vague manner that leads to argumentation about their true role.
Then we have the scriptures of women being subject to their husbands, which, if the verses you, Tom, and Dr. Hardgrove espouse are to be believed, a woman should NOT have to be submissive, since she is equal in leadership.
Nor is man really the head of the woman (though, presumably, Jesus remains the head of men), since women are no longer in any way to be considered different (except physically).
So at least one question for you, Bro. Major, is do you believe women are to be subject/submissive to their husbands. And if not, why not? And if so, then on what grounds do we change the leadership roles elsewhere?
The truth is, I could be wrong about my position. Hey, it's possible. But it's not illogical to hold my position. I am not going against any known scriptures to hold it. However, it MIGHT be that you and others ARE seeking to end run a few scriptures. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/13/12 6:46 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Major... |
Aaron Scott |
Condescension never wins an argument.
I have good reason for believing those particular requirements are not meant to quite so narrowly as we take them. After all, do you really think that Paul the Apostle would have considered himself unworthy to be a bishop or elder when he already occupied an even higher office in the church hierarchy?
However, let's suppose you are correct and those things DO matter. Well, if so, then you lose (again). Because only by RELAXING those requirements do you get to have women in leadership positions (I bet you didn't even realize you were digging your own grave in this argument.)
That is, I DO believe that the specific requirements are "guidelines" rather than an ecclesiastical order. HOWEVER, the fact that these requirements apply only to men, and the fact that the whole men-are-to-lead-the-church positions is supported elsewhere time after time, gives additional weight.
So, whether I do or do not think the requirements are meant to actually exclude a single man, etc., the fact still remains (and is supported by other scripture) that men were the ones chosen to lead the church.
As for logic, well, I do have a degree in philosophy (like RHH!!!), of which logic is a branch. So, I don't know, but I think I might have a handle on it. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/13/12 7:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Major this is uncalled for |
Joshua Henson |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Condescension never wins an argument. |
Doesn't matter.
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | I have good reason for believing... |
Doesn't matter.
| Aaron Scott wrote: | After all, do you really think that Paul the Apostle would have considered himself unworthy to be a bishop or elder when he already occupied an even higher office in the church hierarchy?
|
According to your own "logic" (whenever it is applied consistently, instead of arbitrarily- but I'll address that in a moment), Paul disqualified himself and Jesus from any leadership in the Church after he mandated that bishops be married and that they have children.
| Aaron Scott wrote: |
That is, I DO believe
|
Doesn't matter what you believe or what you don't believe.
| Aaron Scott wrote: | the specific requirements are "guidelines" rather than an ecclesiastical order. HOWEVER, the fact that these requirements apply only to men, and the fact that the whole men-are-to-lead-the-church positions is supported elsewhere time after time, gives additional weight.
|
Ah, and here we have it.  Self-admitted, nonetheless.
The "logic" you argue only applies to the passage when you want it to- or when it supports your argument- and it doesn't apply to the same passage whenever you don't want it to- or whenever it doesn't support your view.
It is a completely and wholly arbitrary and capricious process or "logic."
Classic! This is almost as funny (and the same thing, really) as when Poimen argues that whenever Scripture speaks of wine or alcohol in a positive context that it means "grape juice" and whenever the same word is used in a negative context, it means actual alcohol.
So, in this case, whenever a statement supports your argument it is an explicit command, and whenever a Scriptural statement negates your point, then it arbitrarily and capriciously becomes merely a "guideline" rather than an "order," but the same "guideline" cannot (again, under wholly arbitrary and capricious reasoning) be applied to the usage of the pronoun "he," despite the fact that the passage contains absolutely no prohibitive language and the masculine pronoun is often used in lieu of using both "he" and "she."
Thank you for ADMITTING to this entire forum that you are double-minded on this issue and that your "logic" is really nothing of the sort and that you impose your own preconceived view on a particular text in order to cling to that view.
Classic! Thanks, Aaron!.
| Aaron Scott wrote: |
As for logic, well, I do have a degree in philosophy (like RHH!!!) |
You won't win any sympathy for your argument nor for yourself by throwing around the initials "RHH." I really couldn't care less; I never knew who the man even was when I was growing up (I'm 31, now); and after the mid-1990's and what happened to a fellow COG minister I'm glad I never had the misfortune of making his acquaintance and I never have held any man with those initials in high regard. I can name 100 preachers off the top of my head who could preach circles around anybody with those initials and who didn't tarnish their own reputation by determining that integrity wasn't nearly as important as another term in office.
| Aaron Scott wrote: |
As for logic, well, I do have a degree in philosophy |
You should get your money back.
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | So, I don't know, but I think I might have a handle on it. |
Doesn't matter. |
I can't believe that I just read what I read. You are one bitter person. Your conduct is condescending and arrogant, and you just callously ran the reputation of RHH through the mud.
What is your problem?
Aaron and I recently had a great discussion without resorting to being rude. Yet, you can't help yourself.
It doesn't matter you is right or wrong in the discussion, because you're wrong in your conduct.
_________________
Joshua Henson
Senior Pastor at Pensacola Worship Center
www.pwccog.com
www.ecclesialleadership.com |
Friendly Face
Posts: 379
8/13/12 9:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Major this is uncalled for |
Joshua Henson |
I have been accused before of being bitter by someone on this forum (maybe two)
Whether you are or not only you and God know, but you may want to consider what others think. You come across that way: whether you intend to or not
I'm not at all PC, Josh. It's just not how I roll. Don't mistake my disregard for the rules of political correctness for bitterness. It's not.
I'm not asking you to be politically correct. I'm asking you to conduct yourself with a little more decorum. You can disagree without being condescending. I don't know the rule of PC but I do know the rules of communication in Scripture and rudeness and condescension doesn't fit the rules.
But, I do speak truth- regardless of whether or not that truth is politically correct- and I don't care if you like it or not.
It's the truth according to you. You're not right on everything. You can speak the truth in love. You don't. To speak the truth you don't have to say "doesn't matter", "Not important", "you should get your money back" and you don't have to soil the reputation of RHH.
That has nothing to do with the truth.
_________________
Joshua Henson
Senior Pastor at Pensacola Worship Center
www.pwccog.com
www.ecclesialleadership.com |
Friendly Face
Posts: 379
8/13/12 9:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Logic and Gal. 3:28 |
Link |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: | | Link wrote: |
The bishop must therefore be a man.
|
He must also be a married man.
He must also have children.
That, according to your "logic," (I know, the use of the word "logic" attributed to you is wildly ironic, and that's why I included the quotation marks).
However, I've never seen you object to unmarried, single bishops, nor have I ever seen you object to childless bishops with barren wives.
I've only seen the illogical vendetta against women- and women only- in ministry. |
I'm not too comfortable with the idea of celibate bishops or bishops without children. The requirements for bishop are very similar to the requirements for judges (the pool from which a portion of the elders of the nation were drawn from) which included the idea that they had to be fathers so they would know mercy-- at least according to Maimoinades. Beyond, that it does say the husband of one wife.
There were celibates who appointed bishops, so, well maybe that's okay. But they were apostles, and their 'measure of rule' was tied to bringing the Gospel to new areas. They weren't appointed from within the brethren. The bishop, typically, shows his 'worthiness' in his own family. The apostles demonstrate their apostleship through their winning souls and other related activities.
The requirement that a bishop be the husband of one wife comes right after Paul explains why women should not teach or usurp authority over a man. In context, it is difficult to argue for allowing female bishops. Female bishops who have husbands implies she is over her husband in the Lord, but according to scripture, the husband is her head.
The instruction that a bishop be the husband of one wife follows the teaching that a woman should not teach or usurp authority over a man. It does not follow a teaching that celibates should not teach or usurp authority over noncelibates.
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 8/14/12 2:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/13/12 11:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Major this is uncalled for |
Link |
| Major wrote: |
But, I do speak truth- regardless of whether or not that truth is politically correct- and I don't care if you like it or not. |
It seems like you are standing for the politically correct view, but in such an obnoxious manner as to be politically incorrect.
Can anyone find any specific solid evidence of any Christian supporting the appointment of female bishops from the earliest apostles until, say, 1700 AD? Can you find any evidence in scripture or church history?
The idea that bishops should not be female is the historical 'default' point of view. It is considered politically incorrect now because it goes against ideas we have been effected with by feminists and our political philosophies regarding equality.
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 8/15/12 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/14/12 12:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Major... |
Link |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: |
the masculine pronoun is often used in lieu of using both "he" and "she." |
Can you cite some specific examples to show that this is the case when used in the singular, rather than the plural?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/14/12 12:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Major this is uncalled for |
Link |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: |
I'm sorry, Josh, but I will not be quiet just because I don't think you're going to like me stating the truth and that you're going to accuse me of being "bitter" for doing so |
Which part of your posts are supposed to be 'truth.' I see a lot of tearing other people down and trying to poke holes in arguments. Where is the meaningful contribution to the actual discussion of the issue on your part? I haven't noticed much of that, if any, in this conversation.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/14/12 12:40 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Major Trammell... |
Aaron Scott |
There is no reason for us to continue to discuss matters. You do not take time to grasp the argument being made (you know, the one where you shot yourself in the foot), but spend time and effort to be as obnoxious as you can.
Further, I can no longer believe you have the mental firepower to engage in argumentation. ANYONE--especially someone 31-years-old--who claims they can name 100 preachers who can outpreach Ray H. Hughes, clearly has a problem.
You don't have to like RHH personally to accept that he was at the pinnacle of preaching. By saying something this foolish, you disqualify yourself from being a part of the argument. You are obviously blinded in some way (certainly to the argument that was being made).
I think I now understand why you use "It Doesn't Matter" so much. You are insulting and foolish. Good-bye. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/14/12 5:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Major... |
Aaron Scott |
I will attempt one last-ditch effort on you.
My point is the EITHER WAY you look at Paul's qualifications for bishops--whether you view them as absolute and literal...or simply general guidelines with a male intent--you must STILL conclude that women were not considered for leadership positions.
How?
Because, if you take his statements as literal, you clearly cannot have a woman, since Paul states that the bishop must be the husband of one wife, etc.
But let's say that you take it as I do, as a well-intentioned, general directive to select good, godly, high-quality men. Well, you STILL must conclude that women are not considered for leadership. Why? Because of the OTHER scriptures throughout the NT that indicate, implicity or explicity, that men are to lead the church.
You have Jesus selecting only male apostles.
You have the apostles selecting only male replacements.
You have the leadership of the church comprised only of men.
You have an OT full of examples of male kings and priests.
You have the scriptures where Jesus is the head of every man, and man is the head of woman.
You have the scripture where women are to submit to their own husbands.
On and on, both examples of male-centric leadership and clear statements about it.
Paul's statement regarding bishops does not stand alone. It is supported by a wide variety of scriptural evidence that men are to be the leaders. If his statements did stand alone, then you would have a point that my relaxation of the requirements is a problem. But I made it clear in my previous post that there were other supporting verses that hold up the male-dominated leadership model.
Instead, you dismissed them out of hand, apparently unable to make the connections necessary to understand the argument.
As for getting out a lot, I imagine that at 50 I've heard hundreds of more preachers than you have at 31--especially being raised in a pastor's home and attending revivals, campmeetings, conferences, etc. And I still say that your judgment cannot be trusted if you actually think you can, without extreme bias, name 100 men that can outpreach Ray H. Hughes. Outdo him at General Overseer? Sure. Outdo him as a a musician? Easy. Outdo him as a singer? Almost everyone could do that. But outpreach him? YOU. HAVE. GOT. TO. BE. JOKING. Absolutely ludicrous.
In any case, now that I have explained my argument, I trust you can get it. If not, then I suggest you don't get into an argument that you can't follow. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/14/12 7:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Response |
Mark Hardgrove |
First, to open by expressing disdain for use of logic in theological discourse is very weak. Consider if you will the words of the apostle Paul, who was well versed in rhetoric and rational discourse, employing deductive logic in defense of the bodily resurrection of Christ:
PROPOSITIONS FOLLOWED BY THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION
1 Co 15:12-21
12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
PREMISE: 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
PREMISE: then Christ is not risen.
CONCLUSION 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up — if in fact the dead do not rise.
PREMISE: 16 For if the dead do not rise,
PREMISE: then Christ is not risen.
CONCLUSION: 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
PREMISE: 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ,
CONCLUSION: we are of all men the most pitiable.
CONCLUSION
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
So before simply discounting the use of logic in theological discourse, one might want to take a good look at the writings of Paul.
Second, I do believe that subsequent premises must be interpreted in light of initial premises. If Paul's first statement on the topic is that there is neither male or female, then everything must viewed through that lens. One could, and should, even go back to Genesis chapter one as the initial plan and design of God for humanity before the fall. In the second Adam (Christ) the curse is reversed in terms of spiritual standing and relationships (though the earth and out bodies groan for the full redemption of the physical universe). In Genesis 1 it is a true partnership between man and woman where they serve God equally in taking dominion over the earth.
Third, to try to jump to that argument that if we acknowledge God's original design of equality between male and female means that we have to go on to accept homosexuality is a "straw man" argument. The Bible clearly states repeated in both the OT and the NT) that homosexuality is a sin, an affront to God, and perversion of the natural order of creation. So don't trot out that dead dog and try to use it to undermine a legitimate discussion on gender equality. The Bible never says it is a sin to be a woman or for women to serve equally in all facets of leadership with men.
If we were going to engage in non sequitur argumentation, then by that logic I could argue that anyone who cannot embrace the equality of male and female in ministry and leadership must also be in favor of slavery.
_________________
Mark E. Hardgrove, D.Min., Ph.D.
Senior Pastor Conyers Church of God
http://www.conyerscog.org
Dean & VP for Academics at BHU
http://www.beulah.org/ |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 855
8/14/12 10:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Dr. Hardgrove... |
Aaron Scott |
I don't know if you response was directed at me, but to be sure, I am not at all against the use of logic. My initial claim was that it was not logical to assume that every thing in the BIBLE is inspired, since there is not solid reason to believe that. We are given only that all SCRIPTURE is inspired...not all the BIBLE.
I still have not gotten a solid response, I don't think, as to why we are being asked to disregard the pattern in the Bible ithat is clearly male-centric, as well as the statements that women are supposed to submit to their husbands, and man is the head of woman, etc.,
In other words, I get your argument. And while it makes sense and is certainly in alignment with our (hopefully) more enlightened views, it does not, as far as I can tell, handle the objections raised by other scriptures.
How are you excluding these other statements of scripture, as well as the implicit patter of male leadership in the Bible?
If that can be successfully accomplished, I think your point would necessarily follow. But I am at a loss to explain why I should think that a wife is no longer to submit to her husband, the man is not head of the woman, and all the NT examples of male leadership are to be disqualified.
I would like you to address those issues, if you would. I think it might shed light on just how one can get beyond these matters.
God bless. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/14/12 10:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Moving away from nieve herminutics |
kyle_hinson |
Hope this doesn't hijack this thread, but as we talk about the centrality of scripture in issues like women in ministry etc the following ideas are important to remember:
"Pentecostals believe that the Holy Spirit still speaks today and when the spirit speaks the Holy Spirit has more to say than just scripture even though the spirit will echo and cite scripture...A Pentecostal hermeneutical strategy is needed which rejects the quest for a past determinate meaning of the author and embraces the reality that the interpretation involves both the discovery of meaning the CREATION of meaning. Thus texts are by their very nature indeterminate... the necessary contribution of the reader and the readers community in the act of interpretation…texts have meaning only as they are read and used by communities of readers. Pentecostals must accept the reality that the contemporary interpreter helps create meaning. Meaning is actualized not by the author at the point of the texts conception but by the reader at the point of the text s reception…meaning is created in the very process of dialogue with the text." Ken Archer |
Member
Posts: 45
8/14/12 11:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Kyle...amen! |
Aaron Scott |
I have indicated elsewhere that if we think that cultural considerations have to be made (i.e., that the Bible, like the Constitution, is a "living document," subject to adjustment), then that is the argument that should be made...NOT one from scripture.
And I absolutely agree that it is the Spirit that we should follow, and not manmade interpretations or doctrine (this is why I have difficulty with those verses that state that God ordered the killing of children--it leads me to a place that is in disagreement with the knowledge I have of God through the Spirit).
However, IF the argument is going to depend upon scripture to make the case, then it is also subject to scripture that is contrary, and thus we have our current disagreement.
We have to decide whether women in leadership is SCRIPTURALLY mandated...or if it is throuh the Spirit and so forth that we are making this claim. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/14/12 11:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| I've tried to stay out of this one, this time, but ... |
Poimen |
| Mark Hardgrove wrote: | | One could, and should, even go back to Genesis chapter one as the initial plan and design of God for humanity before the fall. In the second Adam (Christ) the curse is reversed in terms of spiritual standing and relationships (though the earth and out bodies groan for the full redemption of the physical universe). In Genesis 1 it is a true partnership between man and woman where they serve God equally in taking dominion over the earth. |
Yes, please do go back to Genesis, before the fall. Go back to chapters one and two and explain to us what the Bible says about man and woman in their created state.
I admit that man and woman, that is man and wife, were a partnership in some sense. But I submit they still are today, even if not in the egalitarian sense. My challenge to you brother is for you to show from the created state that man and woman were equals in the egalitarian way you present them before the fall.
Please prove from Scripture, if you can, that man was not the head of the wife before the fall, and that woman was not created for the man. If you can prove that, from Scripture, then it would seem you have undone the complimentarian argument at the root. If you cannot, then it must stand.
So ... was the headship of man a prefall reality or not? Was woman created for the man or not? What does the Bible teach us about that? I think that is the point you have to prove brother. And I would be interested to see you do just that.
_________________
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 8/14/12 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/14/12 12:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I've tried to stay out of this one, this time, but ... |
Daniel Rushing |
| Poimen wrote: | | Mark Hardgrove wrote: | | One could, and should, even go back to Genesis chapter one as the initial plan and design of God for humanity before the fall. In the second Adam (Christ) the curse is reversed in terms of spiritual standing and relationships (though the earth and out bodies groan for the full redemption of the physical universe). In Genesis 1 it is a true partnership between man and woman where they serve God equally in taking dominion over the earth. |
Yes, please do go back to Genesis, before the fall. Go back to chapters one and two and explain to us what the Bible says about man and woman in their created state?
I admit that man and woman, that is man and wife, were a partnership in some sense. But I submit they still are today, even if not in the egalitarian sense. My challenge to you brother is for you to show from the created state that man and woman were equals in the egalitarian way you present them before the fall.
Please prove from Scripture, if you can, that man was not the head of the wife before the fall, and that woman was not created for the man. If you can prove that, from Scripture, then it would seem you have undone the complimentarian argument at the root. If you cannot, then it must stand.
So ... was the headship of man a prefall reality or not? Was woman created for the man or not? What does the Bible teach us about that? I think that is the point you have to prove brother. And I would be interested to see you do just that. |
2 illogical parts of your and Aaron's arguments.
1- You are asking us to prove a negative. That is, you are taking something that is not explicitly said in scripture and asking us prove that it is NOT so. Surely you recognize that faultiness of that. That's like me saying: "I think that drinking water causes cancer. Now until you can prove that it does NOT, then my theory is correct." No, if that is my theory, the burden of proof is on me to PROVE IT IS SO, not on others to prove it is NOT so.
2. Aaron, you keep saying there are explicit verses which prohibit women form ministry, yet you never provide them. As for those which you feel are implicit, you fail to admit that there are exceptions to the rules you suppose are there.
(Also, I have completely debunked your understanding of 1 Cor.11 in another thread. I wonder when you will crack the skull on that golden calf?) |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3063
8/14/12 1:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bro Bob |
And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
And then she said, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, there is neither prophet nor ass: for we are all one in Christ Jesus.
Tom, would you consider a possibility? Is it possible that Christ's death on the cross frees our souls from the curse, but as long as we wear skin, our human form will never be free from it? |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
8/14/12 2:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I've tried to stay out of this one, this time, but ... |
Poimen |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: |
No you wouldn't. And now you are being condescending and smug. |
Yes I would brother. I really would like to see that proven. I have no intention of seeming smug, though I can see how one might take it that way. I apologize for coming across like that. There are posters here who I feel are intentionally like that, and I do NOT want to be thought of that way. I don't think it a very becoming trait for those who are following Jesus. I feel like I have a reputation (though not without fluctuation I'm sure) of being both passionate or opinionated and charitable in our discussion, as I believe we all ought to be.
| Quote: | You and I have gone down that path over and over. ... We have done this before and you have defended your position through whatever means you feel necessary. Good for you. But for you to once again imply that others can provide no biblical basis for their differing opinion whatsoever...... Please........
|
Is that how it seems to you? I can assure you I have no intent to seem arrogant or infallible. I am opinionated, and feel I can make a good case for my positions. However, I have not said that Bro. Hardgrove has not made a Scriptural case for his opinion. I differ with his case, but I recognize the Scriptural premise he sites for it. It's in the very title of the thread. The point I am contesting now is with the way he explains or assumes the created state and/or relationship of man and woman to essentially egalitarian instead of complimentarian. HE states that as fact, with a passing reference to the first chapter of Genesis, but without any argument to back up that claim.
Honestly, I don't think anyone can prove that from a review of Scripture on the created state of man and woman. But since he assumes it and states it so readily I challenge him to prove it. If he can do so I would be interested in hearing, considering, and probably debating that.
Listen guys, we all have our opinions, agreements, and differences. But I love you. I count you brothers and fellow laborers in the Lord. I wish not to have, nor be the cause, of hard feelings between us. I do want to dialog, discuss, and debate. And I may come across wrongly at times, but I don't mean to. And I'm happy to try and clear up or rectify it, if I can, when I do. I hope you guys know that.
Now, as for the parts of your reply I overlooked Tom, that was so I could respond to the charges about my demeanor or approach to this discussion. I wanted to seek to clear up and set straight any misunderstanding about my attitude or expressiveness first. If we can agree that I have adequately done so, I would be willing to address your other points.
_________________
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 8/16/12 4:18 am; edited 3 times in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/14/12 2:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| please delete/ignore |
Poimen |
Double post. Sorry.
_________________
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
8/14/12 2:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Tom, would you consider a possibility? Is it possible that Christ's death on the cross frees our souls from the curse, but as long as we wear skin, our human form will never be free from it? |
Should a woman be denied pain killers in childbirth if she requests them? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/14/12 2:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
