RE: Fundamental Baptists.....

Thanks, Pastor Larry. You beat me to the punch. An excellent discussion can be found in nullExegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson.

Of course Thomas fails to mention that the preposition he refers to could also mean "according to" or "against." I could argue as validly as he does that Paul was "against robes." Therefore, women ought only to wear slacks.

Imagine the sillyness that would result if the same methods were applied to the English language. A "butterfly" would be a fly made of butter. A hamburger would have to be made from "the other white meat." The list goes on and on.

I wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you're going to try to make me look silly, please attempt to do so without misquoting me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas responded:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are doing an excellent job of that all by yourself!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the arrogance of that statement speaks for itself, I would like to note that Thomas chose to ignore his misrepresentation of my argument and instead try to blur the matter with a juvenile personal attack.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Bacpacker, you seem to be in a foul mood. All you do is attack me without considering what I am saying.


This is my last post on this subject, if you can't understand what I am trying to say, well I apologizee for my lack of ability to communicate.

Feel free to continue to attack and slam me, but there will be no response. It matters not what men will say.
Ernie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ernie,

Actually I’m in a pretty good mood, but thanks for your concern. I’ve been able to enjoy this thread and even have a little fun. Hey, I’ve even got a laugh out of you always calling me “Bacpacker,” instead of thinking it is some sinister personal attack.

Even though you went away in a tizzy claiming to never post again on this subject, I’ll take a guess you’ll drop in to see if you last post found any sympathy. With that in mind I’ll drop a few last comments (that is if your really done).

I did consider what you said. I said in big bold letters that I actually agreed with you on the one example of a modesty standard that you finally posted. Anyone reading this entire post can see that it is you who made a bold statement and went away in a huff when you were called to task. As was said by Pastor Larry, the “Woe is me song” won’t go far here. Your last post brought to mind a line from a movie called the Kid. “Some body call the Wham………….”

I respect your sincerity, your commitment to the spiritual well being of your family, and your attempt to live a life pleasing to the Lord. It is the pious attitude you demonstrate that is embarrassing to people like me who also hold to the name of Fundamental. Unfortunately it is attitudes such as yours that turn people off from a version of Fundamentalism that is closer to Phariseeism. Mind you it is not the standard as much as the condemning spirit that is intermingled with the standard (be it biblical or man-made). Read your post again. You were not just judgmental. You were condemning! It is that condemning attitude (questioning salvation and love for the Lord) that tempts me at times to throw out the baby with the bathwater, because it’s hard to see the baby anymore with all the other junk floating around in the bathwater.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
[QB


The Bible doesn't say "not to judge", it says to give a "righteous Judgment".

A "righteous Judgment" is one made "by the Spirit", and if it's by the Spirit you judge, it's the spirit's judgment, not yours, and it's not you they condemn, but the "Spirit".


Takes a lot of "guts" sometimes to tell people the truth, especially when they "don't want to hear it".

If the Judgment is by the Spirit, it will be the same on "Judgment day", it's testimony doesn't change.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SB

There is a big difference between righteous judging and condemning people for questioning a position or disagreeing on standards.

 

Pastor Larry & Siegfried,

Very good posts by both of you.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PackerBacker:


SB

There is a big difference between righteous judging and condemning people for questioning a position or disagreeing on standards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Questioning a position, I have no problem with, but disagreeing on standards brings into question as exactly "WHOM" you're disagreeing with, a "personal judgment" or a "Spiritual Judgment".

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
... disagreeing on standards brings into question as exactly "WHOM" you're disagreeing with, a "personal judgment" or a "Spiritual Judgment".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could be either. In many cases, it is disagreeing with a personal judgment. In some it is disagreeing with a spiritual judgment.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
Of course Thomas fails to mention that the preposition he refers to could also mean "according to" or "against." I could argue as validly as he does that Paul was "against robes." Therefore, women ought only to wear slacks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If the above is an example of your exegetical ability you are not going to be a very successful missionary.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roadrunner:
Thomas I did ask you, because you talked as if you knew what they were. Here's a quote from me to you--

"What are the true Bible standards?"

And here is another quote from me to you--

"Yes he did say Bible standards, Thomas, and I'd still like to know what THAT means...."
RR<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It still does not appear from the context that these questions were directed to me. Ernie made the initial claim, I did not. I have no list of standards, biblical or otherwise. I just love and obey the bible, and preach that others ought to do the same thing. I realize in some circles of Christendom that is considered silly and old fashioned, but I would rather stand before the Judgment Bar and be accused of excessive obedience than the opposite.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
And any first year Greek student should be aware of the "root fallacy" of which one extension is that a compound word does not always equal the sum of its parts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Any first year Greek student is aware that the use of καταστολε in 1 Timothy is the only place it is used in the bible. So, any competent Greek student will go outside the bible, to other early Greek literature, to determine the meaning of the word. He will also break the word down into its root components to help him understand the word. There are several commentaries by patristics regarding the verse, and word, in question. I suggest you read Tertullian on the subject. A later Baptist commentator, John Gill, also has an excellent comment on the verse and word in question. Perhaps if you would spend less time arguing and more time in study you would not make such silly errors.

 

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
There are several commentaries by patristics regarding the verse, and word, in question. I suggest you read Tertullian on the subject. A later Baptist commentator, John Gill, also has an excellent comment on the verse and word in question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Thomas. However, the point still remains that most people "in the know" disagree with you. In fact, I can find no major source that agree with you. So be it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps if you would spend less time arguing and more time in study you would not make such silly errors. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an uncalled for personal attack, the very thing that you harp on others for doing. I spend plenty of time in study. I spend very little time arguing. It just isn't worth it. I am not the one who made a silly error here. I take the position that virtually everyone acknowledges to be true. You took the minority position. Too bad your majority bias only extends to the text

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
[/qb]If the above is an example of your exegetical ability you are not going to be a very successful missionary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for making my point. The example I offered was BAD EXEGESIS, but it is every bit as valid (and every bit as wrong) as your example of bad exegesis.

 

Thomas,
You referred to John Gill. Did you read his entire comment? Let me post it here: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> that women adorn themselves in modest apparel: the word rendered "apparel" signifies a long robe, which reaches down to the feet; and the word translated "modest" signifies that which is clean, neat, and decent, yea, beautiful and ornamental;and the sense of the apostle is, that he would not have them to come to public worship in rags, and in dirty and filthy garments, but that their bodies should be covered with clean and decent raiment ; so the Israelites washed their clothes that they might be ready to meet the Lord at Mount Sinai, #Ex 19:14. The Jews always appeared in their best clothes on the sabbath day; this is one of their rules. (Emphasis mine) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the word should be rendered "lowered robe" as you assert, then why are Bible translations unanimous in not doing so?

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Thomas wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Any first year Greek student is aware that the use of καταστολε in 1 Timothy is the only place it is used in the bible. So, any competent Greek student will go outside the bible, to other early Greek literature, to determine the meaning of the word. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what about context? You are leaving the context of the Scripture and jumping immediately to the secular usage. This is not a sound hermeneutical principle. If we do as you are suggesting, the word sarxwould only have one meaning, where Paul uses it in different contexts to describe the body, the sinful flesh, sin nature, etc.

And Dr. Cassidy, can we be a little less insulting in our posts? This is not becoming a Christian gentleman.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
If the word should be rendered "lowered robe" as you assert, then why are Bible translations unanimous in not doing so?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tom, you answered your own question. Note Gill says, as you correctly quoted, "the word rendered "apparel" signifies a long robe . . ." A "long" robe and a "lowered" (in the sense of let down, or long) is exactly the same thing. I was pointing out that Gill agreed with my understanding of καταστολε as did Tertullian.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
But what about context? You are leaving the context of the Scripture and jumping immediately to the secular usage. This is not a sound hermeneutical principle. If we do as you are suggesting, the word sarxwould only have one meaning, where Paul uses it in different contexts to describe the body, the sinful flesh, sin nature, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did not abandon context. I looked at the context and the etomological meaning of the contruct is in keeping with the context. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And Dr. Cassidy, can we be a little less insulting in our posts? This is not becoming a Christian gentleman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would depend upon the posters. I respond in exactly the same spirit I am addressed in.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Dr. Cassidy,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tom, you answered your own question. Note Gill says, as you correctly quoted, "the word rendered "apparel" signifies a long robe . . ." A "long" robe and a "lowered" (in the sense of let down, or long) is exactly the same thing. I was pointing out that Gill agreed with my understanding of καταστολε as did Tertullian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you're missing the question. If the word means "lowered robe" as you assert, why are all the translations mistranslating this word?
And I believe Gill answers your original question in his quote when he gives the sense of the word's meaning.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I respond in exactly the same spirit I am addressed in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not a Biblical way of conduct. Though Jesus was reviled, He did not respond in kind. Dr. Thomas, I believe you are a man of character and you do not need to respond to people in such a way. The NT especially calls on Christian leaders/elders to not act in this manner.