Actscelerate.com

Major...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/13/12 6:46 pm**

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.

Major...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/13/12 7:55 pm**

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.

Major this is uncalled for

Friendly Face Posts: 379 **8/13/12 9:02 pm**

Re: Major this is uncalled for

Friendly Face Posts: 379 **8/13/12 9:47 pm**

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

Re: Logic and Gal. 3:28

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/13/12 11:47 pm**

Re: Major this is uncalled for

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/14/12 12:30 am**

Re: Major...

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/14/12 12:38 am**

Re: Major this is uncalled for

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/14/12 12:40 am**

Major Trammell...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/14/12 5:03 am**

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.

Major...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/14/12 7:00 am**

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.

Response

Acts-celerater Posts: 854 **8/14/12 10:00 am**

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/

Dr. Hardgrove...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/14/12 10:53 am**

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.

Moving away from nieve herminutics

Member Posts: 45 **8/14/12 11:11 am**

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

Kyle...amen!

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/14/12 11:53 am**

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.

I've tried to stay out of this one, this time, but ...

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 ...

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3063 **8/14/12 1:54 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3944 **8/14/12 2:09 pm**

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?

Re: I've tried to stay out of this one, this time, but ...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/14/12 2:29 pm**

please delete/ignore

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/14/12 2:29 pm**

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."

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/14/12 2:30 pm**