Wiley said

" God made man and woman equal in the Garden.  That status changed because of sin.  God allow that change to remain in effect until the Cross when he brought everyone back into an equal state though his son's sacrifice and resurection.  There were female apostles in the early church.  There were elders/bishops (yes, there is evidence of that fact that has been discovered in recent years), there were female ministers/teachers/evangelists, and there were female "deacons."  That is a historical and biblical fact."


Do you have any Biblical evidence to support any of these claims?  You say here that God allowed that change to remain in effect until the Cross when He brought everyone back in to an equal state through His son's sacrifice and Resurrection. If that were the case then when Paul wrote his epistles (after the ascension) then he would have been teaching contrary to the Word,, I could never accept that Paul was off the Word. Equal in importance always, equal as people of course, but we are not talking equality here. We are talking about roles that God laid out for us to fill. Women play a very important part in the Church of Christ and in the individual families as well. You talk of female apostles as being a biblical fact, back that claim up with the Word and I would be the first to repent. But the "fact" is that the Bible teaches us only the contrary to what you are saying. Otherwise we make Paul's teaching faulty and uninspired. If we cannot accept the entire Bible as perfect and infallible then how would we justify what parts to accept and what parts to deny. I believe that is what is happening to some of the denominations today, allowing homosexuals not only to be members of the church but to be ordained ministers.
They are watering down the Word to adhere to their lifestyles and cultures instead of the other way around. I believe we should line everything up with the Word not the world. Lastly concerning this topic you talk of Historical facts, what should that matter, it was a historical fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were filled with sodomites but that didn't make it right. People have been doing things that were contrary to Gods Will since the Garden and that is also a part of History. Should we put the Bible through a man made and uninspired historical strainer to pull the parts of the Bible out that we don't think are in line with out unbiased historians?

Kensington said:

"You can't reinlist... there could be women over you in authority in the chain of command, and you don't believe in that.  Right?"

Lol, that's pretty funny. First I don't have a problem with a woman being in charge of a man outside of the Church unless that man is her husband. Although I will say that while in the Marines I can only remember 4 or 5 women in my unit and none were my senior. Women are called to be submissive to their husbands, not everymans husband. 

JohnB said:

"You can't reinlist... there could be women over you in authority in the chain of command, and you don't believe in that.  Right?"

Thanks for the encouraging words, if my current endeavors to not pan out then I may very well consider it.


God Bless

Jason

I have been thinking today about this subject and this is what I felt like sharing with you all.

This is the last Age, the last covenant God is going to make with sinful mankind.  As we have all been discussing it seems overwhelmingly so that Christ is coming back very soon.  One thing we need to remember is that God never changes.  He may change the way He goes about bringing something to pass but His character never changes.

He inspired the NT writings and nowhere does He say that we will need to update them for Him.   Times and people change but not God. What He hated in the OT is what He hates in NT times and what He loved in the OT He still loves now.   You can depend on His promises. I think that's one of the great things about God, don't you?

The inerrancy of the Bible is something we Christians have always taken pride in. We knew that through translations a word here or there may have been misinterpreted but it wasn't something big enough to change the original meanings of Scripture. Now we have people fussing not only over a word or two but complete books, some have questioned and called them strawmen. What is it coming to when we can't trust God to give us a Bible that is holy and true!

It may not matter to some of you that some of the newer versions have changed that Mary was a virgin to a young woman but it matters to me.  The free sex going on today and people living together without ever marrying is nothing new and they probably don't care or even notice the change.

We are living in a very educated and evil generation.  It doesn't matter what people have done to advance themselves or how their cultures have changed over time, not to God any way.  What He told Paul, Peter, James and John, etc., to write is good until He returns to end the world that now exists.  It has been doomed since the beginning. Mankind can try to make it better but God has already told us, it will wax worse and worse.

 For I am the LORD, I change not Mal. 3:6

The thing is that when Paul was writing to the church about women in the church... He was speaking to a time when the church was new, and everyone was trying to learn, they met in the Temple and the men sat separated from the women, women were asking questions across the divide and there was confusion. Paul wrote to this. Telling a woman today that she cannot teach, when she is a spirit filled born again believer who has read her bible every day for 28 years, studied on the secondary level on many subjects and spent time with God learning, as Paul did is futile.

I said I speak the truth and teach the truth every day, every where I go...  some man who is not above me in Christ... is not going to tell me that I can't. Because I already am, and I have been for a long long time. What I know, I teach to others.  I am a sojourner in Christ with anyone who is in Christ, and I am fulfilling the commandment to "Go into all the world and make preach the truth"... 

It's what I do, it's who I am.  I teach anyone who will listen and I speak the word consistently daily.  Men hear it... do you mean that because I spoke it, they aren't learning the word?  That is silly.  Or that when I speak truth, they are to reject it because it came from me? That is sillier than the other one. 

Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God...  I teach when I speak about the word and the LORD...  I know that. If you are seeking truth, you go to someone who knows it and you listen and learn. 

Paul said what needed to be said for the day and time, concerning order in the service at that time.  99% of my time is NOT spent in a church service.  It's not the ONLY place to find the word today.  When I am there, I am learning from my Pastor who is teaching...

I'll go on teaching what I know, God will continue to guide those who he wills to learn from me. I'm not giving up now, I've come too far, and there is so little time left to see people saved and learning in faith. 

Lets remember.... where a man could not be found, God used a woman.  He used Debrorah to lead the Nation of Israel.  And Paul was clear more than once, that many of his teachings were his, not the LORD. God gave him some "growing room" and he used it. We need to be patient and do the same thing.

People learn from one another, and that does not mean that anyone is taking authority.  I'm for that.  I'm sure God can handle it if I missed one verse in the word in my walk, which is what men seem to build their whole faith on.  He can do so much more than that. If you could see where I was when he found me, compared to where He has me now... you would understand.

Wiley's assessment, which you quoted in green, is correct.  Wiley, Sherman,  and others, have given ample evidence to these things numerous times.  Most of the time the evidence is rejected because of;

1.  It is constantly necessary to argue the technical problems relative to traditional translations.  I've already given one exposition of translational bias having to do with "office of Bishop".  Translators have typically interpolated their cultural perspective into the NT text, especially as relates to women and "leadership".  The constant rooting around with the original language and the various ways in which it has been understood/misunderstood by translators becomes a thoroughly tiring, fragmenting experience.

2.  An hermeneutic of "Biblical Blueprintism" is typical of many Christians who "take their Bibles seriously", and especially we who have history and ancestry in the Stone/Campbell movement.  "Those who advocate this paradigm champion the idea that the NT contains a meticulous blueprint for church practice.  To their minds, we simply need to tease out of the Bible the proper blueprint and mimic it.  (However), the NT contains no such blueprint for church practice.  Neither does it contain a list of rules and regulations for Christians to follow.  As NT scholar F.F. Bruce puts it, "In applying the NT text to our own situation, we need not treat it as the scribes of our Lord's day treated the OT.  We should not turn what were meant to be guiding lines for worshippers in one situation into laws binding for all time." 

"Biblical Blueprintism" is stultifying, not to mention that it constitutes an avoidance of actually living the way that Jesus modeled so that we could enter into the fullness of Life with the Father and each other.  Any system of hermeneutics that produces second class citizens within the Kingdom of Heaven is by definition a faulty hermeneutic.

As Wiley and Sherman have already pointed out, the cultural norms of the first century (also before and after) demonstrate the realities of what God told Adam and Eve were to be the consequences of their rebellion.  That has been, and continues to be, the story of "the world", and unfortunately that worldly story has too often been in the "church story".  Paul and Peter often instructed Believers to not exercise their "rights" in Christ if that exercise would be offensive, especially to the "weaker brother" (and evidently this doesn't apply to women, because NO "weaker sister" is ever mentioned... ;o)  ) and cultural propriety was part of their instruction to the churches. 

So, it remains to us to discern what in the Epistles and Acts is prescriptive and what is actually descriptive. 

When it comes to issues of "authority" in the church I'd always advise skepticism if that perspective of "authority" gets cross-wise with what Jesus said about "lording it over" in Matt. 20:25ff and if "authority" means that some so and so's takes upon themselves to be the Holy Spirit for other Believers.

"Authority" and "leadership" are not necessarily synonyms.  No Believer is to have command authority over any other Believer, rather, we are to submit ourselves to the Lord and submit outselves to each other.  Leadership among Believers becomes an organic reality where there is humbleness and submissiveness to the Lord and to the brethren.



V
 

In green are quotes from Volkmar:


Wiley's assessment, which you quoted in green, is correct.  Wiley, Sherman,  and others, have given ample evidence to these things numerous times.  Most of the time the evidence is rejected because of;


because it isnt supported by the Bible.

As Wiley and Sherman have already pointed out, the cultural norms of the first century (also before and after) demonstrate the realities of what God told Adam and Eve were to be the consequences of their rebellion.  That has been, and continues to be, the story of "the world", and unfortunately that worldly story has too often been in the "church story".  Paul and Peter often instructed Believers to not exercise their "rights" in Christ if that exercise would be offensive, especially to the "weaker brother" (and evidently this doesn't apply to women, because NO "weaker sister" is ever mentioned... ;o)  ) and cultural propriety was part of their instruction to the churches. 

So, it remains to us to discern what in the Epistles and Acts is prescriptive and what is actually descriptive. 

 1 Tim 2:12-15

12.  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.  13.  For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.  14.  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul here gives some reasons for why he teaches on women not teaching or exerciseing authority over a man. Have these reasons changed, did the woman being deceived, falling into transgression stop being a reality after that culture passed? I will choose to listen to Paul and his teaching that were inspired by God and not the culture of his day.

Thier does not need to be any discerning where their is plain, straight foreward teaching , read verse 12, it isnt a very deep issue, pretty cut and dry. To me its similar to do not fornicate or murder or lie.

"Biblical Blueprintism" is stultifying, not to mention that it constitutes an avoidance of actually living the way that Jesus modeled so that we could enter into the fullness of Life with the Father and each other.  Any system of hermeneutics that produces second class citizens within the Kingdom of Heaven is by definition a faulty hermeneutic


What I am suggesting in Obedience, nothing else. Obedience is more important than sacrifice...Are you saying that keeping withing the guidlines that paul left for us keeps us from living like Christ. Then whose guideline should we follow, our own discernment, ive never met someone discerning enough to live outside the Bible and inside the will of God at the same time, are you that wise and discerning in Gods will for you life to pick and choose what "guidelines" to take and which to ignore as cultural ideals.

As Wiley and Sherman have already pointed out, the cultural norms of the first century (also before and after) demonstrate the realities of what God told Adam and Eve were to be the consequences of their rebellion.  That has been, and continues to be, the story of "the world", and unfortunately that worldly story has too often been in the "church story".  Paul and Peter often instructed Believers to not exercise their "rights" in Christ if that exercise would be offensive, especially to the "weaker brother" (and evidently this doesn't apply to women, because NO "weaker sister" is ever mentioned... ;o)  ) and cultural propriety was part of their instruction to the churches. 

So should we not speak against genocide or rape or homosexuality, because it may have been just a cultural thing and if we do speak out with the truth of Jesus Christ some person living in sin may be offended and we wouldnt want to make someone feel uncomfortable for living contrary to the Word of God would we. Jesus Christ didnt stop speaking against rebellion and disobedience when the pharasees and sudducees appeared, of did He?

So, it remains to us to discern what in the Epistles and Acts is prescriptive and what is actually descriptive


I would never want to be included in the "us" of discerning the scriptured to mean something different for you than for someone else. God is the same..always.

When it comes to issues of "authority" in the church I'd always advise skepticism if that perspective of "authority" gets cross-wise with what Jesus said about "lording it over" in Matt. 20:25ff and if "authority" means that some so and so's takes upon themselves to be the Holy Spirit for other Believers.

"Authority" and "leadership" are not necessarily synonyms.  No Believer is to have command authority over any other Believer, rather, we are to submit ourselves to the Lord and submit outselves to each other.  Leadership among Believers becomes an organic reality where there is humbleness and submissiveness to the Lord and to the brethren.

Some can and do abuse authority, but we cant just pick and choose or "discern" away scriptures because they ruffle our feathers or are contrary to the way WE believe we should live, We are either in Gods will or not, in line with the Bible or not. God is not going to lead us astray from what He has already had written down for us as a guidebook for our lives.


finally I will end with this I will be back later must sleep and God Bless you.

Jason

johnb, you're right about God not changing.  I see no new laws in the NT, just Jesus expounding on the commandments.  Jesus made some of them a little tougher.  Not only do you commit adultery by sleeping with someone other than your spouse but you are guilty also just by lusting in your mind.   What about murder?  It no longer takes a gun to kill your brother or sister when lies will do it.

Mosaic law is done away with but the commandments written by the finger of God aren't a part of those laws. They were given before any of the civil and ceremonial laws of the OT called the law of Moses.

Is it a rule to love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, or to love your neighbor as yourself?  What about when God says if you love me, you will keep my commandments?

Did Jesus come and die so you can continue to live in sin?  Or did He send the Holy Ghost back to empower you to triumph over sin?

Now that Grace abounds should we continue in sin, God forbid!

Jason are you saying we must obey all commands in the NT?