 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Bro Bob |
| You're gonna die, Bonnie. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3944
8/14/12 2:42 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Daniel Rushing |
| Bro Bob wrote: | | 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? |
Hmmm. Such a hypothesis creates a spirit/flesh dualism I am not comfortable with. If salvation is a spiritual work, then why the incarnation? I don't like where that theology leads. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3063
8/14/12 2:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I've tried to stay out of this one, this time, but ... |
Poimen |
| Daniel Rushing wrote: | | 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. |
Actually, I am asking Bro. Hardgrove to back up his assertion that man and woman were egalitarian in their created state. He made that claim, not me. He assumed it as fact without citing proof or giving argument to the same. I can cite Scripture to the contrary. Such as ...
Genesis 2:18-25
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. ... And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
1 Corinthians 11:8-9
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Those refer to the created state, not the fallen state, and are used to argue, even in Scripture, for a complimentarian relationship and the headship of man in marriage.
_________________
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 2:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bro Bob |
The theology of which I speak, Paul addressed in 2 Cor 4. I usually prefer the KJV, but for this one, NIV helps me.
Bonnie spoke of modern man not being subject fully to the curse because of science, and his knowledge increasing. She is right.
I live much better and worked a lot less strenuously than my fathers. But I am going to die like they did.
Scientists can now genetically alter certain animals and greatly lengthen their life. Soon they will be doing it for humans also. But it doesn't change anything. We will still die.
It doesn't seem fair that childbirth was not the painful ordeal for Bonnie that it was for her grandmother, although for my wife 24 hours of labor was quite the ordeal. It doesn't seem fair that 200 years from now men will live 50% or more longer than I will.
But you know what does seem fair?
Just as Jesus came out of that tomb, I will rise from mine to meet him. I have no other hope in Christ, if I do not have that one. On that day the curse will be lifted for me, yet strangely, not for all. Whether the CoG had a woman PB will not be on anybody's mind. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3944
8/14/12 3:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | Bonnie spoke of modern man not being subject fully to the curse because of science, and his knowledge increasing. She is right.
|
My point is not whether we are or are not. My point is to examine whether or not we would we embrace the results of the curse if given a choice.
Most people do not have pangs of conscience associated with administering pain relief to women during childbirth even though God told Eve she would bring forth children in sorrow. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/14/12 3:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Daniel Rushing |
Was physical death part of the curse, or was it part of God's original design? How could God's good creation be sustainable if no one died? God's order of creation is cyclical. I have always thought this. No where does it say that physical death came because of sin. I have always been of the opinion that "death" became a dreaded thing because it just meant going to a grave, instead of back to our creator.
It would seem to me, that bodies made to decompose (from dust to dust) were biologically engineered to one day expire. But before the fall man's relationship with God would dictate that whatever happened after that was up to the creator. Now, however, man has to face that destiny alone and without God. The word we use for "hell" is often "grave" in the scriptures.
Also, we know that Adam and Eve did not die because of their sin- at least not immediately. And there were men who never died, both pre-Christ: Elijah and Enoch. So it doesn't seem to me that physical death can me a marker of the universality of the curse. At least not in the sense of the physical body naturally expiring.
Thoughts? This is purely hypothesis on my part; but I feel good about it.  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3063
8/14/12 3:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Response |
PastorJackson |
No I do not think you can, because by doing so you will be making a case that God is for slavery. Like it or not Paul through the guide of the Holy Spirit, part of the Godhead tells us that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. Why is that so hard for all of the most educated to grasp?It has NOTHING to do with equality with men and women in ministry, it has to do with a set prohibition that God himself laid out for ministry! I have read all the banter both sides and I can not get past that one verse of scripture. If we accept (1) that the Holy Bible was inspired by God (2) It is perfect and complete by that definition, and (3) is our rule and guide then logic dictates we have to follow the instructions laid out in the bible. Ipsofacto men and women are called in ministry to the Lord, however there NOT equal in that God has placed instructions on the office of Bishop that CAN NOT be overlooked. Paul writes, "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity...not a novice,...he must have a good report of them which are without...." [1Tim.3:2-7]
Paul expands on these qualifications when writing to Titus: "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." [Titus 1:9]
A bishop must be as Paul states or he does not qualify for holding that office, regardless of his desire for it. And for that female who also may desire the office of a bishop, the most she can do is desire it. God explicitly sets that position in the ministry as off limits for her. The Word of God expressly states that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, not the wife of one husband. It is confusion for anyone to think otherwise, but Satan does confuse many and causes others to think God's Word does not speak to the requisite qualifications. | Mark Hardgrove wrote: | 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. |
_________________
Are the things you are living for, worth Christ dying for?
http://www.jacksonplant.org/
http://jacksonplant.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/jackson.plant |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4743
8/14/12 3:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Daniel... |
Aaron Scott |
| Quote: | 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.
First, THANK YOU for your kind attitude. It is a welcome change from a previous poster.
As to the point you raise, you will find that I am NOT arguing against women in the ministry. The Bible is CLEAR that there are prophetesses, women who appear to work in an evangelistic aspect, and the such.
What I am disputing is whether there is any scriptural support for women in high leadership. We know, for instance, that the older women are to teach the younger women. This could be construed as a leadership position, I'm sure; but nowhere in the NT do we find women in high leadership (e.g., over the church, as apostles, etc.).
Yes, there is a vague reference or two over which there is dispute, but there is absolutely, so far as I know, any clear statement of women in a leadership position in the early church.
I don't claim that it is wrong to have women in leadership or advisory positions. I DO claim, however, that there is no good argument from scripture for the such. That doesn't mean it is "outlawed" by God, though I do think that 6000 years of Biblical history OVERWHELMINGLY gives us solid precedence for adhering to the male leadership model.
In fact, of the very few women leaders in scripture, at least two of them are given very bad grades. Jezebel in the OT...and "that woman, Jezebel" in Revelation.
So, again, I'm not against women in ministry. I simply claim there is no solid reason from scripture for women in leadership. Now, if you wish to argue based on the Spirit or our growing enlightenment, fine. But to argue from scripture just doesn't work--there are too many clear statements of male dominance to make that work (i.e., proof that the whole male-female dichotomy only vanishes in a spiritual sense, and not in terms of leadership/headship).
(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?)
I don't know if this was directed to me, but I will try to seek out what you are referring to. It is utterly INCONCEIVABLE that you have debunked me. (Sorry, could not resist "Princess Bride" moment.)
|
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/14/12 3:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Major Trammell... |
Link |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: |
You have readily admitted and even demonstrated in this thread that the rules change regarding your hermeneutic whenever you want for them to change or need for them to change in order to support your view.
|
Have you ever presented a hermeneutical analysis of the subject? If Aaron is wrong for ignoring part of the verse, how do you justify ignoring it all? I don't see you contributing anything of value to the conversation except to mock others and pokes holes in their arguments. Where are your arguments? Where are your contributions to our discussion?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/14/12 6:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: | Link, at this moment I am content to simply point and laugh.
I feel no need to enter a discussion by positing serious, actual thoughtful, reasoned posts that I know will simply be ignored or twisted beyond recognition by those who refuse to see it any other way than what their own misguided traditions and biases have taught them. |
So is that why we don't see much in the way of serious, thoughtful, reasoned responses from you? Don't fear rejection. Go ahead and give it a try. Something edifying would be nice, too.
| Quote: |
I would almost compare it to having an Oxford Professor attempt to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to a classroom full of 1st graders who are all more interested in what will stick underneath their seats than the more serious and academic subject of physics and space and time relationships.
|
Is the condescension and unjustified arrogance just an act for the sake of your own entertainment, or do you really believe it?
Btw, do you say stuff like that when you preach?
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 8/14/12 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/14/12 11:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Major,
I did not know you were posting under your real name, so I deleted the references to various handles. You may delete them in quotes of my post if you wish to. It's up to you.
If you don't wish to engage in serious, thoughtful dialogue on certain people on certain issues, why engage at all? Playing the role of a mocker or scoffer is not a good thing according to Psalm 1.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/14/12 11:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| For the record |
Poimen |
Major, FTR, since you've brought it up so frequently as of late ... you have oversimplified and misstated my argument about wine and the bible. Nor have you mentioned that the discussions to which you refer are several years old now at that.
I do not wish to hijack this thread. However, it is bothersome to be repeatedly misrepresented. You may not have meant anything by that, but I wanted to set the record straight all the same. So ...
I do not believe any and all positive references to wine necessarily refer to non-fermented wine. I do believe that non-fermented wine was possible, available, and even common in 1st century Israel, as well as among heathen nations. Furthermore, I believe that all wine, be it fermented or non-fermented, was commonly diluted in NT times and among NT peoples. Consequently much of their normal consumption of wine (if fermented) was not as potent as the stuff today, and would have essentially been the equivalent of non-alcoholic beverages for common drinking purposes. Nevertheless, drunkenness was condemned, and was therefore possible.
I do not condemn moderate consumption of alcohol, only drunkenness. Though I do urge abstinence.
If you, or anyone else, wishes to discuss that further we can take it to a new thread. I just wanted to state my position, for the record, and for clarity.
_________________
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
8/15/12 12:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Back to the topic at hand, how do those who believe in a very egalitarian view of women in ministry handle the opening verses of I Timothy 3 in light of the fact that the 'I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man' teaching precedes it?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/15/12 12:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Major..I call BULL MALARKEY |
Aaron Scott |
| Quote: | | I've never stated anything that I couldn't back up (that wasn't a mere opinion, anyway). |
There's a reason you stand on the sidelines and mock, rather than actually engaging in argument. And you've indicated it here: You don't state things you can't back up. And since you can't back up your argument, you don't state it...leaving you with nothing but condescension and mockery. Now I understand why you aren't actually joining the argument. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/15/12 4:23 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: | Using logic, we can see that a woman does not meet the qualifications.
All husbands are men.
Women are not men.
Therefore, a husband cannot be a man.
The Bishop must be the husband of one wife.
The bishop must therefore be a man.
|
Something about that just sounds "off."  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/15/12 12:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Wrong attribution. |
bonnie knox |
...
Last edited by bonnie knox on 8/15/12 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/15/12 12:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Thanks for pointing that out Bonnie. I did not catch that. I intended that for Major. I fixed the quote in my message.
I apologize to Joshua Hensen for my mistake.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/15/12 1:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link, I'm still trying to figure out how "a husband cannot be a man." |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/15/12 1:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Link, I'm still trying to figure out how "a husband cannot be a man." |
I did not even catch it when you quoted it.
Therefore, a husband cannot be a woman.
That's probably what I meant to write. Sorry.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/15/12 3:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Major,
Have you ever seen a movie and saw someone do something so embarrassing, you felt embarrassed for them just watching it? Have you ever seen it in real life? I've been watching the boasts and put downs in some of our posts and waiting for you to let one that you are teasing. But it seems you are serious. I knew some kids in the early years of high school who thought much of their intellect who would say things like that about their own intelligence in comparison to others. At 14 or 15, I might expect someone to think like that. A man's reputation is a valuable thing, and if you have some kind of ministerial license with the COG, you have a lot more skin in the game than I do in these discussions. Lots of people read these discussions, and they know who you are. But it's your life and your reputation.
| Major B. Trammell wrote: |
I think I explained to Aaron in another thread, but I'll take time to say it again. If you and I are standing looking at a big blue wall and you tell me that the wall is yellow and I show you what blue is and it is the same color as the wall and you continue to argue that the wall is, in fact, yellow- and I can see that it is blue, and you can see that it is blue (yet refuse to acknowledge it), and everyone around sees that the wall is blue, and you STILL continue to stomp your feet in defiance and proclaim the wall to be yellow- well, that just deserves ridicule. |
I can certainly relate what you are saying to the topic at hand.
Let's say someone quotes 'no male or female' out of Galatians, and ripping it out of context (related to being heirs according to the promise) and instead argues that if there is no male or female, then anyone can marry any other person regardless of gender....in spite of the fact that Paul, the author of Galatians, speaks against this sort of thing. That's like calling blue yellow and yellow blue.
Or let's say that someone argues based on 'no male or female' that women can be bishops, in spite of the fact that Paul writes in I Timothy 2:12 through 3:2
"And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man....A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife".
Does that mean I should childishly insult those who can't see how silly their argument is with personal insults? No, I wouldn't want to sink to that level.
| Quote: | | For someone to read Galatians 3:28- a passage that tells us explicitly that in Christ there is no separation based on mere gender or ethnic or socio-economic circumstances- |
It's a good thing I don't see anyone arguing for separation based on gender. I do see myself and others arguing that this verse does not cancel Paul's instructions that the bishop be the 'husband of one wife.' I don't see any justification for stretching Paul's meaning in Galatians to contradict his other writings in regard to the bishopric any more than we should do so over the issue of gay so-called marriage.
| Quote: | | Tradition really is that strong and binding. |
I know tradition can strongly effect the way people think. I was raised Pentecostal, and the power of tradition certainly reached to me. I grew up being taught in favor of women in all types of ministries. Then I got to reading the Bible. Over the years, I realized a lot of my Pentecostal tradition on a number of issues didn't line up with the word, and I had to discard a great deal of it.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 2:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
