 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Mat |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | Here's my point, there will come a time when you are the one saying to the family, for the sake of my ministry and career, we are going to move across country. You know that you will have this conversation many times if you're going to move up the latter.
What that means is that you will be telling your husband for the sake of the ministry we are moving and you must look for a job in the new state. You will be the one who tells the kids that they we leave family, friends and schools behind for the new position. |
If the marriage is egalitarian, the man (or the woman if the opportunities become available in the Church of God), doesn't just order the spouse to pack. They would discuss it together and if both feel it is God's will, then proceed. If they both didn't feel it was God's will, they might both pray more over the decision to come to more clarity, or they might mutually decide that one person would compromise his or her desires. To me it is strange to imagine that the only way to look at this is for the man just to inform his wife of what they are "going to do" (though I'm well aware many people think God has actually endorsed that way of operating).
Without calling out any names, I will say the church seemed quite moved when a particular church leader who apparently would have been happy to accept a certain position decided, in what we must conclude was consultation with his wife, that accepting the position was not in the best interest of his family.
If opportunities open up for women in the future, indeed, family discussions might revolve around whether the wife accepts the position and the subsequent move rather than whether the husband does. If you think it would be bad for a wife to simply tell her husband, "Pack your bags, honey, I got the position, and we're moving," I would agree, but I think that would be bad whether it was the husband or the wife announcing to the other that they were moving.
I often wonder why some people who seem content to use Ephesian 5 as a club over the heads of women have the expectation that something is quite out of order if the husband has to sacrifice for his wife as is mentioned in that same chapter. Is there a list somewhere of which sacrifices are considered manly enough to actually expect a man to do? (Ha, I probably shouldn't ask that because John Piper, Wayne Grudem, or Mark Driscoll might actually have a list!) |
One last observation on obtaining and ministering in a position of authority (man or woman). I have found that asking your family to sacrifice for the sake of the ministry goes with the calling. If a leader cannot/will not ask his family to put ministry first, they will never be able to lead others into sacrificial situations. When you have a local church that needs a new pastor with a new approach, though they do not want such a pastor and there is no support for a pastor, you have to be able to lead the needed pastor to the point of taking on the challenge.
In the military, women who want to rise in the ranks have come to realize that unless they have combat leadership experience their willingness to put others in "harms way" will be questioned. At some point you must have led from the front to have others follow you. Leading from the back will get you "fragged", in terms of acceptance of your leadership.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
8/6/16 11:02 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm sure we would all agree that Genesis 1 and 2 is a far better and blessed model to aim for than the sinfulness and curse of Genesis 3. |
Well... :?
I don't know that Jerry Waters from ENC who stood to speak to agenda item #8 and cited Genesis 3:16 as being the hermeneutical "first mention" of the established divine order would agree. It sure sounded like he thought Genesis 3 was the prototype.
Also, when spartanfan mentioned that one of the COG resolutions adopted referenced some of the distinct roles of men and women ("...their sincere desire for the church to remain faithful to the Scriptures do have a complementarian view in regard to the different roles of men and women, as our official adopted resolution on Transgender Restrooms states...."), I went back to look and see what he was referencing. Indeed the resolution does state that men and women have distinct "roles," AND it cites Genesis 3:16,17 to back this up! (I made a wry mental note that verse 19 was not included, lol.)
So, I don't know if "we" would all agree that Genesis 1 and 2 shows a better model. |
I should have perhaps made my implied meaning more explicit: We would all agree that Gen 1 and 2 is a far better and blessed model to aim for than Gen. 3...if we thoughtfully pondered on it for very long.
In my experience, many simply are unwilling to thoughtfully ponder anything that makes them feel insecure and which might in any way threaten their perception of their own power. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
8/6/16 11:33 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | I should have perhaps made my implied meaning more explicit: We would all agree that Gen 1 and 2 is a far better and blessed model to aim for than Gen. 3...if we thoughtfully pondered it for very long.
In my experience, many simply are unwilling to thoughtfully ponder anything that makes them feel insecure and which might in any way threaten their perception of their own power. |
Yes! 
I think this is what is happening in cases where some are objecting to being called sexist because in their minds they are scriptural. Yet they do not care to examine the larger body of scripture and happily trot out their little prooftexts. Then I ask myself WHY will they refuse to "thoughtfully ponder" their prooftexts in light of the rest of scripture. Hmmmm... |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/6/16 11:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Mat, I think I understand what you are driving at, and I think it has been discussed here on Acts before. (Can you believe a three-page post that I refrained from commenting on, lol?)
http://www.actscelerate.com/viewtopic.php?t=77709 |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/6/16 11:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
I don't know where the clip is. I would like to watch it.
We need to keep in mind that the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not be sexist" or "Thou shalt not be racist."
If saying that a wife should submit to her husband and recognizing that the Bible requires some different things of husbands and wives is 'sexist' then a certain type of sexism is a good thing.
If acknowledging that God made covenants with the Jews and the that the Gospel is 'for the Jew first' is racism, then at least one form of racism is a good thing.
We should seek to have integrity according to the word of God and hold to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and that takes precedence over certain modern ideals of egalitarianism.
Having not seen the clip, I can imagine why people booed. One is that the Bible doesn't say anything that would endorse whites forcing all the blacks to sit in the back of the bus because of the color of their skin. Here we are talking about 'bad racism.' But the Bible does teach that the bishop should be 'a man'-- using two different words for 'man' in two passages--a man with one wife/woman. So the comparison of the example of 'good sexism' with the example of 'bad racism' was not fair. The issue should be holding to Biblical teaching, not some modern secular idea of gender egalitarianism. Telling the women to drive the bus with the bishops may also have been seen as contrary to I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/16 10:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, you obviously have your spiel and have not followed the conversation. If you truly want to see the clip, I will repeat what I posted on p. 2 of this thread:
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/16 6:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | We need to keep in mind that the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not be sexist" or "Thou shalt not be racist." |
The mistake you make is thinking a concept has to be expressed in one sentence to be scriptural. For example, the Bible does not say "God is trinity." We find concepts (if we're honest) in scripture that don't have a neat little catchphrase.
But maybe I should play your game. Does the Bible say, "Women shall not participate in the General Council of the Church of God."?
(Ha, I didn't think so.)
Last edited by bonnie knox on 8/17/16 6:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/16 6:33 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Telling the women to drive the bus with the bishops may also have been seen as contrary to I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. |
That some people saw it as contrary to scripture doesn't mean that it is.
(Where is LC when you need him, lol.) |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/16 6:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | But the Bible does teach that the bishop should be 'a man'-- using two different words for 'man' in two passages--a man with one wife/woman. |
The measure at hand did not have anything to do with the qualifications of a bishop!! |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/16 6:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | So the comparison of the example of 'good sexism' with the example of 'bad racism' was not fair. |
Keeping women off the General Council just because they are women is not good sexism. Why callest thou evil "good"? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/16 6:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Link, you obviously have your spiel and have not followed the conversation. If you truly want to see the clip, I will repeat what I posted on p. 2 of this thread:
|
Exactly. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/17/16 7:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| Link wrote: | | The issue should be holding to Biblical teaching, not some modern secular idea of gender egalitarianism. |
 Unfortunately when most people say "the Bible clearly says", they typically means that the opinion expressed is mine and is the correct one. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/17/16 7:50 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | We need to keep in mind that the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not be sexist" or "Thou shalt not be racist." |
The mistake you make is thinking a concept has to be expressed in one sentence to be scriptural. For example, the Bible does not say "God is trinity." We find concepts (if we're honest) in scripture that don't have a neat little catchphrase.
But maybe I should play your game. Does the Bible say, "Women shall not participate in the General Council of the Church of God."?
(Ha, I didn't think so.) |
There isn't any scripture that says, 'There shall be a General Council of the Church of God' either.
We could just as well be debating whether a man or woman be allowed to unzip the giant green zipper when we gather together for a church meeting.
| Quote: |
Keeping women off the General Council just because they are women is not good sexism. Why callest thou evil "good"? |
Why would it be evil to keep women off the council? Would it be evil to say a woman shouldn't unzip the green zipper or that a man shouldn't? If we look at it that way, either way is kind of neutral. It doesn't matter.
But practically, the General Council holds a great deal of influence over a number of churches. And if you are in an episcopal system, then 'bishops' are higher up in the organization in that sort of philosophy (rather than just plain ole pastors and elders at the local level.) If the Bible says that the bishop should be a man, why should the higher ups in the system be women?
As far as 'discrimination' goes, hasn't God repeatedly discriminated in terms of gender? He made women be able to bear children and not men. (Is that discrimination for or against? You decide.) He had Adam rule over his wife. The men of Israel were to serve in the army, rather than the women. Boys and men who were too old were not required to serve in the army. God commanded that man be able to cancel their wives' and daughters' vows, but he did not give wives that power. The Bible commands that wives submit to their husbands but doesn't say, "Husbands, submit to your wives." Instructions for wives to submit to their husbands is repeated in different forms four times or five times in the New Testament.
That's not evil. That's God's perogative.
As far as the 'boo' goes in the clip, I finally saw it and it finally worked, though it skipped around like a broken record. I suspect the booing had to do with the comparison to racism, but some of it could have been 'pent up' as a reaction to his verbage and comments. The video skipped a bit, but I think it was the same guy who kept using all the feminist terminology 'patriarchal' and 'priveleged' men, saying the board would be male and old.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/18/16 9:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, you're talking about a lot of things that aren't relevant. Women are pastoring and being missionaries in the COG and making incredible sacrifices to do so. Yes, it is evil to keep them from having a voice in the things that affect them.
Link, you seem to have problems following my reasoning when I said that scripture doesn't say women can't be on the council. That is not my argument; that was only to show how foolish it is to try to apply your contention that the Bible doesn't say thou shalt not be sexist.
The fact that men and women are different in biological (primarily reproductive) function has nothing to do with restricting women from the General Council. I know it's part of your spiel to try to point out that God made women and men physically different, but it really has nothing to do with restricting women who are licensed ministers in the Church of God from being part of the General Council.
(Also, it's not really relevant to this issue, but to say God "had" Adam to rule over Eve is not precise. Nowhere is it recorded that God told Adam to rule over Eve. What is recorded is God telling Eve that it would happen. If that was a consequence of the Fall, then logic demands that it was not that way originally. But that's a tangent; I hope if we continue to discuss this particular point we take it to another thread.)
Sorry the clip jumped around for you; I suspect that might be your connection or system. Generally when I viewed, I would have one glitch at the very beginning of watching any particular clip, then the rest would be smooth.
You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word patriarchal. What the speaker was saying was that the Council of 18 and the Executive Committee would still be restricted to men (and given our system, mostly old white men). That's stating the facts.
You also seem to like to point out Old Testament law as if that is the be all, end all of how God feels about men and women. News flash, it's not. You need to start looking at the bigger picture, you really do. To quote Ronald Pierce (who also cites Stephen Westerholm), "It would be wrong to confuse the Mosaic law with an exhaustive statement of God's will for humanity or to assume that mere compliance with it could satisfy the righteousness God requires. When Jesus declared that he came to fulfill the law without abolishing it (Mt 5:17), he called his disciples to move beyond traditional understandings of Torah observance to a way of life that embodies the will of God more perfectly." The OT law arguably improved the lot of women when compared to surrounding pagan societies. God gave the law within the context of a patriarchal society, but that does not mean God was endorsing everything about that society.
Your points about wives submitting again looks for literal statements rather than concepts. Gnat straining. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/18/16 11:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Link, you're talking about a lot of things that aren't relevant. Women are pastoring and being missionaries in the COG and making incredible sacrifices to do so. Yes, it is evil to keep them from having a voice in the things that affect them. |
You seem to be equating morality and democracy/representation. Where does God do that in the Bible?
Is it evil that everyone is not on the council? Why does some woman on the council speak for you or for some other woman in the COG more than a man on the council does?
| Quote: |
Link, you seem to have problems following my reasoning when I said that scripture doesn't say women can't be on the council. That is not my argument; that was only to show how foolish it is to try to apply your contention that the Bible doesn't say thou shalt not be sexist. |
I'm not sure I get your point. My point was that the Bible doesn't condemn all 'sexism.' There are plenty of good things in the Bible that could be called 'sexist.' The law is holy just and good.
| Quote: | | What is recorded is God telling Eve that it would happen. If that was a consequence of the Fall, then logic demands that it was not that way originally. |
Paul points to man being made first, woman being made for man, pre-fall stuff.
| Quote: |
You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word patriarchal. |
I don't have a problem with the word at all. Patriarchy can be a good thing. Creation is a patriarchy after all. All patria on heaven and earth derives its name from the Father.
It was the way he used the word 'privelege' (It wasn't 'male privelege' but that was the gist) so soon after patriarchal that smacked of Feminist verbage.
| Quote: |
You also seem to like to point out Old Testament law as if that is the be all, end all of how God feels about men and women. News flash, it's not. You need to start looking at the bigger picture, you really do. To quote Ronald Pierce (who also cites Stephen Westerholm), "It would be wrong to confuse the Mosaic law with an exhaustive statement of God's will for humanity or to assume that mere compliance with it could satisfy the righteousness God requires. |
Those who condemn all forms of 'sexism' or any deviation from a gender-egalitarian ideal who claim to accept the Bible as inspired should face the fact that there are many things in the Torah that are inconsistent with their world view.
| Quote: | | The OT law arguably improved the lot of women when compared to surrounding pagan societies. God gave the law within the context of a patriarchal society, but that does not mean God was endorsing everything about that society. |
I'm not talking about the society being patriarchal. I'm talking about God giving patriarchal laws. He could have turned that aspect of their society upside down. I'm sure the laws He introduced into their society about idolatry were counter-cultural.
Why add layers of patriarchy to patriarchy? God had Moses tell Israel that men were allowed to cancel their wives' and daughters' vows. Why add that to an already patriarchal culture?
It is inconsistent with the Bible to consider patriarchy to be evil or patriarchal laws to be unilaterally evil. One would have to accuse the Creator by implication.
| Quote: | | Your points about wives submitting again looks for literal statements rather than concepts. Gnat straining. |
You'd have to clarify your point. Should we just treat detailed teachings in the Bible loosely as a 'rule of thumb'? Btw, gnat straining wasn't wrong. Swallowing camels was the problem.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/18/16 12:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, I'm not equating morality and democratic representation. What I'm talking about is all the wrong-headed prooftexting that is being used to restrict female licensed ministers.
I'm not asking a woman to speak for me. I'm saying female licensed ministers in the COG should be on the Council floor. I'm saying there is no valid reason to restrict them from that.
(This is off-topic here, but I will respond, but I hope if you want to continue this you take it to another thread. Paul did say Adam was formed first, and that is indeed true. That is the way it happened. I don't think the implications of that are what you think they are because I believe Paul was correcting wrong teaching about Eve being formed first. Also, the animals were formed before Adam. The passage you are referring to is the same passage that uses that word authentein. Please do some study on this so that you don't keep repeating yourself.)
God as Father is a metaphor and not sufficient by itself to describe God. It is not the only metaphor of God in the Bible. God doesn't have a physical body with reproductive organs.
Link, why did Jesus say turn the other cheek when Torah said eye for an eye??? Please, stop and ask yourself why if the law was holy, just, and good, did Jesus say such revolutionary things about it.
"...smacked of Feminist verbage...." LOL Is there something wrong with smacking of Feminist verbiage? You seem to think anything that can be called "feministic" is something to steer clear of apparently. But Jesus did some things that definitely elevated women from their customary place in his day.
(What I'm talking about is the way you claim that there are 4 places that scripture says husband should submit to wives, but you will dismiss the scriptures that tell all Christians to submit to one another such as 1 Peter 5:5, Philippians 2 . This doesn't really have a bearing on women on the Council floor unless you twist the scriptures to say they justify men ordering women about.)
And if all your arguments against women being on the Council floor are valid, I do believe you would have to remove them from the General Assembly floor where they already vote and have a voice and where the recommendations of the General Council are accepted or rejected. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/18/16 1:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| WHOA! |
R. Keith Whitt |
| Mat wrote: |
If a leader cannot/will not ask his family to put ministry first, they will never be able to lead others into sacrificial situations.
Mat |
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I can't let this one slide 
First, the first institution that God ordained was the family (Gen 2:21-24), not the Church (Acts 7:38).
In spiritual hierarchy, therefore, the family comes before ministry -- no if ands, or buts! That's the reason too many ministers have kids who are resentful of the church and, consequently, the Church.
No minister should ever move (under normal circumstances -- another subject for another day...) unless the family is on-board. I'm not saying that they all have to be dancing for joy; BUT, if the God (God, not ambition) we serve wants us at a particular location, He's big enough to confirm it to the family, especially a spouse!
Contrary to some ill-informed preaching, the disciples did not abandon their families, when they "forsook all." Careers, ambitions, riches? Yes! Their families and the needs of their families? No! Just look at the example of Jesus (Peter's mother-in-law; Mary, at His Crucifixion, etc.) to see the example.
You "lead others into sacrificial situations" through the Word. Leading people solely through an example assures they will have no foundation. Further, if a minister ignores the needs of his/her family to take care of "the ministry," he or she has no moral or biblical authority to stand up and say thus saith the Lord (1 Tim 5:8).
Second, God and "ministry" are not the same. Equating them elevates ministry to a position it was never designed to have. To do so, makes ministry an idol (false god).
Mat, please understand that my tone is one of passion, not condemnation. We've lost too many generations because of faulty ecclesiology.
Keith
_________________
R. Keith Whitt |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 684
8/18/16 3:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: WHOA! |
Mat |
| R. Keith Whitt wrote: | | Mat wrote: |
If a leader cannot/will not ask his family to put ministry first, they will never be able to lead others into sacrificial situations.
Mat |
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I can't let this one slide
First, the first institution that God ordained was the family (Gen 2:21-24), not the Church (Acts 7:38).
In spiritual hierarchy, therefore, the family comes before ministry -- no if ands, or buts! That's the reason too many ministers have kids who are resentful of the church and, consequently, the Church.
No minister should ever move (under normal circumstances -- another subject for another day...) unless the family is on-board. I'm not saying that they all have to be dancing for joy; BUT, if the God (God, not ambition) we serve wants us at a particular location, He's big enough to confirm it to the family, especially a spouse!
Contrary to some ill-informed preaching, the disciples did not abandon their families, when they "forsook all." Careers, ambitions, riches? Yes! Their families and the needs of their families? No! Just look at the example of Jesus (Peter's mother-in-law; Mary, at His Crucifixion, etc.) to see the example.
You "lead others into sacrificial situations" through the Word. Leading people solely through an example assures they will have no foundation. Further, if a minister ignores the needs of his/her family to take care of "the ministry," he or she has no moral or biblical authority to stand up and say thus saith the Lord (1 Tim 5:8).
Second, God and "ministry" are not the same. Equating them elevates ministry to a position it was never designed to have. To do so, makes ministry an idol (false god).
Mat, please understand that my tone is one of passion, not condemnation. We've lost too many generations because of faulty ecclesiology.
Keith |
I understand your passion and concern for the family of ministers. I'm a fourth generation pastor and I can say with certainty that there were one or two moves my dad made I was not excited about (when I was 15 we moved from Atlanta to Windsor, Ont, Canada. Try that for culture shock.) However, our family stayed intact, my sister and I are both Christians and involved in ministry, as is the next generation.
It is a life of faith and submission when we, including our family, accept the call to ministry. I know there are stories of hardship and some minister's kids will say that they do not serve the Lord due to the ministry. I have faithful people in my church who never made a move for the ministry sake and some of their children are not saved. What shall we blame for that?
In a denomination, the reality is, you have to be willing to move if you are going to move up (like the military, government work or a corporation). The topic includes women ministers moving into position of authority. There is a process established and you must "earn your stripes" if you want to be taken seriously. Even the Apostle Paul pointed to the "stripes" he had received as an element of his Apostleship be legitimate.
There can be no "double standard" for women ministers in quantification for raising to leadership in which that have authority over others in ministry. If the family is the reason for not moving than it is the reason for not moving up.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
8/19/16 7:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
I'm not asking a woman to speak for me. I'm saying female licensed ministers in the COG should be on the Council floor. I'm saying there is no valid reason to restrict them from that. |
Another way of looking at this as opposed to having a right to be on a council floor is to ask what the leadership structure is in the Bible. Of course, the COG denominational council isn't in the Bible, so the reasoning gets kind of fuzzy and loose either way.
| Quote: | | (This is off-topic here, but I will respond, but I hope if you want to continue this you take it to another thread. Paul did say Adam was formed first, and that is indeed true. That is the way it happened. I don't think the implications of that are what you think they are because I believe Paul was correcting wrong teaching about Eve being formed first. |
That last sentence is highly.
| Quote: | | Also, the animals were formed before Adam. |
Adam wasn't formed from the animals for the animals. God gave man, male and female, dominion over the earth.
| Quote: |
God as Father is a metaphor and not sufficient by itself to describe God. |
God is Father and He was Father before He created human beings in his image who had the potential for Fatherhood. Every patria in heaven and earth derives its name from the Father.
| Quote: |
Link, why did Jesus say turn the other cheek when Torah said eye for an eye??? |
Are you saying that 'an eye for an eye' is a part of the law that is not holy? Do disagree with Paul that the law is holy, just, and good. If God gave a law, can we say it is not holy? What is your point here?
The Jews in Jesus day were applying a statement to be used in the cultural equivalent of a courtroom to how they treated one another.
| Quote: |
Please, stop and ask yourself why if the law was holy, just, and good, did Jesus say such revolutionary things about it. |
About the jots and tittles?
| Quote: |
"...smacked of Feminist verbage...." LOL Is there something wrong with smacking of Feminist verbiage? You seem to think anything that can be called "feministic" is something to steer clear of apparently. But Jesus did some things that definitely elevated women from their customary place in his day. |
Jesus didn't endorse a modified communism that has the 'patriarchy' with 'male privelege' continually oppressing women. I don't know if the majority of the preachers in the meeting picked up on the verbage, either.
| Quote: |
And if all your arguments against women being on the Council floor are valid, I do believe you would have to remove them from the General Assembly floor where they already vote and have a voice and where the recommendations of the General Council are accepted or rejected. |
Like I said, this is somewhat like debating who the Bible teaches should unzip the giant green zipper before the church meeting begins. We are getting into extra-biblical areas of organization. Your post asked why people booed, and I proposed some possible reasons.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/19/16 7:21 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Are you saying that 'an eye for an eye' is a part of the law that is not holy? Do disagree with Paul that the law is holy, just, and good. If God gave a law, can we say it is not holy? What is your point here? |
You don't need to ask what my point is. Ask what Jesus' point was in the revolutionary things he said about the law in Matthew 5. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 8:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
