Actscelerate.com

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/22/12 3:11 am**

It looks to me like an argument about denotation versus connotation.

'Assistant' is probably fine for denotation. But the connotation involves subordination, which isn't appropriate for that Hebrew word.

There are other passages that deal with the issue of subordination.
_________________
Link

diakoneo

What about...

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 **8/22/12 10:27 am**

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

How are we to interpret the phrase "weaker vessel" here?

It seems that "New Covenant" Peter is saying there is a difference.

...but alas I am no Greek scholar and using the KJV...I must be a rube.

Smile

Oh wait a minute...what about the NIV

1 Peter 3:7 New International Version (NIV) 7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

My goodness, that is even more politically incorrect Twisted Evil

diakoneo

Re: What about...

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 **8/22/12 11:16 am**

diakoneo

Context...

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 **8/22/12 11:55 am**

1 Peter 3:1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Why would God want women to act differently with a saved husband, than with an unsaved?

The whole purpose of this is to win the unsaved husband. That was the purpose of his writing here as I see it.

So perhaps to win our families and so the world we should pay heed to these scriptures in the same vein?

Should we look at this as descriptive or prescriptive?

Funny how the Apostles liked to describe submission and subjection so much...

Sorry for the sarcasm...I couldn't help myself Twisted Evil

Link

Re: Context...

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/22/12 1:04 pm**

diakoneo

Re: Context...

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 **8/22/12 1:11 pm**

Link

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/22/12 2:17 pm**

I beleive Pentecostalism, in general, is lacking in how it approaches the whole leadership issue. We emphasize gift and call, and that is good, to a certain extent, but we emphasize it in areas where the scriptures emphasize other qualifications, too, which leads to error.

One big problem, IMO, with Pentecostal and Protestant interpretation in general is the fact that we call our leaders 'pastors.' There is nothing wrong with recognizing that as their role and assosiating it with that word in scripture. But when we ignore the fact that the 'official' leaders the apostles appointed were called either 'bishop' or 'elder' (with both words referring to the same role), that leads to confusion.

The Bible emphasizes the 'call' to ministry a lot in regard to the apostolic ministry, not the local bishopric ministry. Paul repeatedly wrote that he was called to be an apostle.

When it comes to the local bishops/elders who were appointed together with responsibility in a single church and city, there were actual ministry qualifications. Paul repeats them twice, almost the same, across two cultural contexts.

Paul also taught various churches to follow his ways, to keep the traditions he taught, and even to discipline those who did not by withdrawing fellowsihp. He said to follow him as he followed Christ. I don't care for the terms 'prescriptive' or 'descriptive' the way the've been used in this thread because I don't think they are accurate-- but to use those terms, we should consider that there is a 'prescription' in scripture to do things the way Paul (and the other apostles) did things-- not just to make up our own traditions. Doesn't it make sense that we should discard traditions and return to 'traditions' actually specified in scripture?

What does the Bible tell us that a church pastor does? Does it say he preaches in the front every week? Does it say he fills out the reports? Does it say he keeps office hours if he doesn't have another full-time job? Ephesians 4:11 says 'pastors and teachers' but doesn't say much more. There are several passages about the duty of elders. One of those duties is to 'pastor' which is IMO sloppily translated as 'feed' in the KJV in Acts 20:28 and in I Peter 5. We need to realize that the main 'official' leadership role is 'elder' or 'bishop' so we can connect the dots as we interpret scripture.

We also need to realize that not only ordained elders did ministry in the local church. They were to oversee, protect, and care for the body. But they did not do all the teaching. Hebrews 5 shows us that if the saints there had properly matured, they should be teachers. The epistle exhorts believers to be persuaded by their leaders, so they weren't all elders already. I Corinthians 10:26 and Hebrews 10 show us that the saints were to use their gifts to edify one another. Romans 12 commands believers with the gifts to do so to prophesy, teach, and exhort. I Corinthians 14 gives commandments of the Lord for church gatherings which give guidelines for 'ye all' to prophesy.

The elders appointed as bishops were to be 'apt to teach'. How could anyone know that if only elders taught, or if only elders plus extralocal ministers taught int he assembly?

Pentecostal denominations in many cases ended up with a system that doesn't differentiate much between ministering as some sort of teacher, prophet or evangelist and 'pastoring.' In some cases, the same ordination is given to all at the denominational level. If someone wants to minister to the body, he almost has to take on clergy status, and almost has to be recognized as 'a pastor.' Anyone that wants to do imporant teaching ministry a lot may feel the pressure to have to join the clergy cast. That shouldn't be normative, according to the New Testament. We should have many people exercising their gifts in church. Not all of them are elders or apostles. But if they qualify, and God gives them a desire to be overseers, why shouldn't they be? The apostles appointed elders from within congregations. We don't see them bringing in hired elders from outside the congregation.
_________________
Link

diakoneo

Re: Context...

diakoneo · Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 **8/22/12 2:26 pm**

Bro Bob

Bro Bob · Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3945 **8/22/12 2:47 pm**

Link, the only problem I see with your post is that we have been formed and shaped in our thinking on this by our culture, not scripture.

Even when we look at our twin denomination who uses far less top down structure in their government than we do, they still choose to have one pastor, even while they function with more responsibility being used within the local body.

How would you propose a local church operate if it desired the highest possible fidelity to scripture? And how would you propose this denomination get to that model from where we are?

I don't think we can do it.

diakoneo

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 **8/22/12 2:53 pm**

oops double post

diakoneo

Re: Context...

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 **8/22/12 4:21 pm**

Aaron Scott

Tom, a thought

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6032 **8/22/12 6:10 pm**

I hear you on the whole "Yes, but what was the ORIGINAL INTENT in the Garden" thing. I think that's a good point to ponder.

I would note, though, that Paul, speaking about that creation, clearly showed that HE understood the original intent to be one of the man's primacy.

For example:

Link

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/22/12 8:31 pm**

Aaron,

That last post sounds like a like a liberal low vies of scripture to me.

Is the reason this bit of scripture is hard to accept because it doesn't fit with the philosophy of this present evil age?
_________________
Link

Link

Link · Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/23/12 2:46 am**

Tom,

I think your characterization of my viewpoint, or whoever wrote that quote, is a bit unfair.

What I wrote was intended to be a thought provoking question with a bit of rhetorical punch to it.

"Is the reason this bit of scripture is hard to accept because it doesn't fit with the philosophy of this present evil age?"

I did put it as a rhetorical question to make people think. Maybe I laid the rhetoric on a lit thick or was a bit too blunt. I meant no disrespect.

Wouldn't you admit that it is a possibility that we can be influenced by the world's culture when we interpret the Bible? The passage doesn't fit with the overall philosophy of our culture, and we do live in an evil age.

Christians who lived in ages before the rise of feminism and some of the egalitarian concepts that grew out of the philosophies that led to modern democracies and republics didn't usually have a problem with the idea that certain leadership roles were for men. But this idea is particularly distasteful to people who live in American and Western European cultures, and those our cultures have influenced. Is God harming women in any way if He doesn't ordain that they be in this role? Does it harm their salvation, redemption, or any other such thing?

What is 'evil' about these philosophies when it comes to this and related issues, IMO, is that it sets up strongholds in people's minds that lead them to believe that the way God has ordained things is somehow oppressive. If God selected only men to be in the 12 or to serve as bishops, then those influenced by the current philosophies may see this as a violation of 'rights' and 'equal opportunity' and reject the way God ordered things as unjust.

God is a Father. The whole creation, therefore, is under a patriarchal system. If God is not oppressive, there is a form of patriarchy that is not oppressive. But in the thinking of many feminists, patriarchy is oppressive.

This problem also extends to the home. Some Christians, preachers even, have difficulty with the idea of wives submitting to their husbands. We know there are some abusive men who can quote verses about it. Where this becomes particularly evil, IMO, is when unbelievers think that any conservative Christian who believes in wives submitting to their husbands think of these Christians as abusive men who won't let their wives use cell phones and make them scrub the spaces between the tiles in the kitchen every night with a toothbrush. It's even worse when Christians, or even preachers, think that Christians who believe in submission are like that.

God is God, and He has the right to set things up the way He wants to, as we would both agree. If we let ourselves be too influenced by the world's thinking on equality, we can consider some of the things taught in scripture that He wants us to believe to be bad, and it skews our interpretation.

I agree that this whole issue is a difficult one. Of course, I believe in women praying and prophesying. So I am not an 'absolute silence' type person, and I am not sure where to draw the line, but I do believe we should accept what is taught in scripture. And I also believe it is quite dangerous to reject the qualifications and much of the 'system' for how church leadership is to operate, and replace it with something created out of whole cloth because of tradition. I also believe churches suffer in numerous ways--perhaps that we don't all recognize because we are so used to it-- because so few of them pay much attention to the Biblical requirements for leadership. I wonder if the stats on teen pregnancy, divorce and remarriage, and numerous other issues in the church are not related to the way the selecting of leaders is done. (And by 'the church' I am speaking very broadly and NOT about the COG denomination in particular.)

The idea that Paul was wrong in writing this scripture goes right along with what liberal theologians do with issues they don't like. Isn't that what they do with Romans 1, and various other scriptures?

It also fits with the 'low view of scripture' concept, too, doesn't it?

I don't say that about everyone's conclusions on this aspect of women in ministry who follow a different line of reasoning.

Aaron Scott

Tom, I hear you, bro...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6032 **8/23/12 5:05 am**

If I were in your shoes, I would be forced to follow the leading in my heart. In issues where there is controversy, we MUST allow each other the respect and room to walk according to the light we have been given or what our conscience can bear, etc. In other words, we are all working out our own salvation.

I would not at all want to "box in" someone who, like you, I truly believe is trying to do and find the right way.

To be clear, I DO hold that the "Word of God" is inspired. I simply don't think everything in the Bible fits that description. Some of it is, I believe, men of God, serving in a pastoral role, giving their best advice. Much of it is, however, a word from the Lord, whether verbatim or in a more general sense.

So, Tom, for what little it is worth, so long as I think someone is doing what they are doing NOT because it is popular or what have you, but because that is the honest conclusion they have reached upon digging into the scriptures for which we cannot make an absolute case either way...I'm all behind you.

Link

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/23/12 6:01 am**

Link

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/23/12 6:15 am**

The Roman Catholics call their priests 'father.' (Priest comes from the Greek word presbuteros, which means 'elder'.) I'm not saying they are right in doing so considering Matthew 23, but there should be something fatherly about the elder/bishop role.

This man is a father:
I Timothy 3
3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 [b]one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

This man is a father:
Titus 1
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

The first Timothy 3 passage lines up with Christ's saying in Luke 16:10,
"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."

First the man is faithful with his own life, his wife, and his children. Then, he can be entrusted with something greater, the household of faith. After this, he functions in a fatherly role in the household of faith.

The Head over the whole family is the Father. Doesn't it make sense that this be reflected somewhat in the church here on earth?
_________________
Link

Link

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/23/12 6:16 am**

The Roman Catholics call their priests 'father.' (Priest comes from the Greek word presbuteros, which means 'elder'.) I'm not saying they are right in doing so considering Matthew 23, but there should be something fatherly about the elder/bishop role.

This man is a father:
I Timothy 3
3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 [b]one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

This man is a father:
Titus 1
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

The first Timothy 3 passage lines up with Christ's saying in Luke 16:10,
"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."

First the man is faithful with his own life, his wife, and his children. Then, he can be entrusted with something greater, the household of faith. After this, he functions in a fatherly role in the household of faith.

The Head over the whole family is the Father. Doesn't it make sense that this be reflected somewhat i the church here on earth while we are still in this form?
_________________
Link

Bro Bob

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3945 **8/23/12 8:43 am**

Is it significant that Jesus was male?

edit: Well this question has been sitting here without reply for half a day. There are some who may think it deserves no response, or that if it does, it should be in another thread.

Truth is, I never asked myself the question before. But the more I think about it, I believe it does belong in this thread. And I believe those who get their pants / skirts all in a wad over our 6000 years of ignorance ought to be the ones to answer it.

If I taught Gal 3:28 at a theological seminary the way it has been presented here, I would have an answer for this question. If I didn't, I would make a class assignment of it.

Why was the messiah a person of heterogametic sex? Did it matter?

Bro Bob

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3945 **8/23/12 4:49 pm**

Wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I suppose the pants / skirt reference did that. (Ironic, to say the least.)

Some of you may find this hard to believe, but the first thing I do when I find my view to be different from a brother, is I try my best to put myself in his place, try my best to see things as he sees them. And what I find is that there is usually something underneath a view that explains what the true difference is at the root of our thinking on the thing.

Between you and I, Tom, I think the thing that leads us to different understanding on this whole role-of-women question is a different view about what the redemptive work on Calvary actually accomplished. I'm not hard set against your view (as much of it as you have revealed) but I am more than leaning the other way as to just what the redemption of Christ actually means to a human still in his natural body. Without presuming to speak for my father, I think your view on women in ministry is pretty much what his was back in the late 1960s. My point here, in the event it is not clear, is that I do not esteem you less for your view any more than I esteem him less. I never knew a better man than my dad. And the reason I made this point is this: He recently addressed the issue of confession and what it does, repentance, and what that does, and the truth that neither one remove us from what we are. It redeems our souls. Our bodies remain cursed. We do hold this treasure in earthen vessels. He looked me strait in the eye the way only he can and he told me, "Son, YOU are gonna DIE!"

Some things just are. They always have been. To anyone who is offended by those two true statements, if you mock the idea rather than operate from it, there is no point in trying to reason with me. I am never going to be able to see your viewpoint. You will certainly never change mine. We might as well talk football.

So, Tom, I read where you say that you have some doubts about your understanding. And I ask myself, if I were Tom, where would those doubts come from?

And of course others question, if in Christ there is NO DIFFERENCE, then why did he pick 12 men... etc.

And then it came to me. Why did he need to be a man? Couldn't he have been a woman? Wouldn't that have worked just the same? If not, why not? If it must-needs-be that Christ be male, then why did it have to be?

I don't share your view about the created state being equal in all aspects other than the complimentary physical differences. But even if that were true, where is the basis for thinking the cross restored it? In Christ there is now neither clothed nor naked?

So I guess my point is just that. Let's back up and do it all over again where Christ is female. Play the whole thing out all over again. If your assignment was to just re-write the four gospels with a little Minutes style editing where Jesus was female, would it make any difference? However, if that is totally unworkable, for any reason, then how can WE say that Gal 3:28 means the death of Christ was restorative to the pre-fall relationship between male and female?

If you are interested... http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1173323/contemplating-feminine-incarnation-what-if-jesus-had-been-born-a-girl