Biblical Reasons for Men as Deacons

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:
[QB] Scott,

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But [/b]women[/b] will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1 Tim 2:11-15 NASB)

The word "a" does not definitively appear in the Greek. The article may mean "a" or "the."

It's kinda hard for a woman to be "the husband of one wife"! 1 Tim 3:2,12

When you understand that the passage that says, "Wives should..." you must understand that the word used is literally "women." In that instance, it makes perfect sense that there are instructions for men and instructions for women about the character needed to be deacons.

1 Corinthians 14
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

I think this last passage puts this debate to rest!

It doesn't at all, actually. The silence is a result of something else - see http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/women/w_without.shtml for a quick read concerning it.

 

[John Wells]

Scott,

I went to your link and to their "beliefs" link and found this:

"The ceremony of water baptism is performed by complete immersion for the forgiveness of sins upon true repentance and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice. After this ceremony, and as a result, one receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands."

When a person or group is that far off base scripturally, I tend not to put much trust in anything else they say/preach!

I still see little more than grasping at straws in your arguments. You are trying to work scripture into stating what you want it to say here, rather than accepting the literal and clear (to most of us) meaning. The use of "a" by the NASB translators, as well as others, makes a strong case. Many believe the NASB to be the most accurate translation.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:
[QB] "The ceremony of water baptism is performed by complete immersion for the forgiveness of sins upon true repentance and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice. After this ceremony, and as a result, one receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands."

So you don't care too much for the baptism of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands? Doesn't it seem strange that instead of examining their argument, you decide to argue against something that is quite unrelated? That's basically an ad hominem attack. One may have one thing doctrinally correct and another doctrinally incorrect. That doesn't mean that what is correct is any less so. If you can't argue against what was said, then just say so.

When a person or group is that far off base scripturally, I tend not to put much trust in anything else they say/preach!

By that same token, I could say that I should never place any trust in the preachings of John Piper, who is a Calvinist (in which I believe is far off scripturally.)

I still see little more than grasping at straws in your arguments.

The difference is that I am attempting to make an argument. Meanwhile, you are unable to account for the fact that Paul changes from a plural to a singular subject. You cannot provide any explanation for this at all, can you?

You are trying to work scripture into stating what you want it to say here, rather than accepting the literal and clear (to most of us) meaning.

That's just it -I'm trying to understand the literal and clear meaning of the Greek.

The use of "a" by the NASB translators, as well as others, makes a strong case. Many believe the NASB to be the most accurate translation.

Are you saying that the NASB is infallible? The facts are still the facts. The Greek can be translated either "a" or "the." With the other information we have, especially from hearing Paul give accolades to women apostles and leaders, "the" makes a whole lot more sense. Your appeal to the NASB is a mere argumentum ad verecundiam.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[QB]By that same token, I could say that I should never place any trust in the preachings of John Piper, who is a Calvinist (in which I believe is far off scripturally.).

Your beliefs doesn't negate sound biblical doctrine. Spurgeon is a Calvinist too. I suppose you relegate him to some low thelogical post as well?

The difference is that I am attempting to make an argument. Meanwhile, you are unable to account for the fact that Paul changes from a plural to a singular subject. You cannot provide any explanation for this at all, can you?

Here's an explanation by simple illustration:

Children should obey their mother and father. It is not right for a child to dishonor his parents. The child is to should show respect for his parents. It is up to parents to teach this to their children.

Scott, was it unclear whether I was referring to a specific child at times, vs. children as a whole? This is EXACTLY the manner in which Paul presents his case.

The facts are still the facts. The Greek can be translated either "a" or "the." With the other information we have, especially from hearing Paul give accolades to women apostles and leaders, "the" makes a whole lot more sense..

And in the scriptures in question, it doesn't matter whether it's "a" or "the," as my illustration points out. You are ignoring 1 Cor. 14:34-5 among others. Your appeal is a mere argumentum ad nauseum.

 

[John Wells]

Sorry, double post!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:
Your beliefs doesn't negate sound biblical doctrine. Spurgeon is a Calvinist too. I suppose you relegate him to some low thelogical post as well?

That's why I said that I don't buy the argument that just because I don't agree with a belief doesn't mean I have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Here's an explanation by simple illustration:

Children should obey their mother and father. It is not right for a child to dishonor his parents. The child is to should show respect for his parents. It is up to parents to teach this to their children.

Scott, was it unclear whether I was referring to a specific child at times, vs. children as a whole? This is EXACTLY the manner in which Paul presents his case.

This makes sense in English. In Greek, however, this just isn't seen. Paul doesn't do this anywhere else, nor is it found elsewhere in the Greek language, Biblically or extra-Biblically. This is an incorrect illustration.

And in the scriptures in question, it doesn't matter whether it's "a" or "the," as my illustration points out. You are ignoring 1 Cor. 14:34-5 among others. Your appeal is a mere argumentum ad nauseum. [/QB]

Which the article addressed, and you didn't answer the article. The only reason it seems ad nauseum to you is that you aren't addressing any of the issues, just trying to smokescreen what is going on.

 

[John Wells]

I'm beginning to understand why our views are so diametrically opposed. Postmodernism pervades our education system nowadays and you demonstrate its powerful influence in your reasoning.

Postmodernism teaches that all humans are on a perfectly level playing field. It dismisses a Creator who created woman from man and subjected her to him, because it teaches that women are co-equal in all aspects, since women and men both are "survivalists of the fittest" through evolution. The biblical worldview teaches that "God is no respector of persons, male nor female, slave nor free, Greek nor Jew," but that God has assigned roles and authority for the purpose of harmony.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (Ephesians 5:22-23)

So Scott starts with that "evolved equal" ingrained belief, convinces himself that the Bible must agree, and forces the biblical view to agree as he has attempted to do here, by inferring meaning that quite honestly and simply isn't found in the practical reading. That is the only logical explanation I can deduce as to why you insist on distorting clear, straightforward teachings by Paul.

Postmodernism teaches there are no absolute moral truths and that we should all respect and accept each other's moral views. So Scott (in another debate) states that although he believes that homosexuality is a sin, he believes we should respect and accept moral views of people that disagree. It's called "the new tolerance." Traditional tolerance says accept all people but not all views/values regarding morality. The postmodern worldview calls traditional tolerance a form of intolerance. I bring this up to validate postmodernism's influence on your mindset, Scott.

So on the one hand, Scott argues a hermeneutic that has been influenced and formulated by his postmodern worldview against John who argues a hermeneutic that has been formulated by seeking to adhere to a biblical worldview. No wonder we are so far apart!

 

[ColoradoFB]

So very typical...use scripture to keep 'em "barefoot & pregnant". Men who like to lord over women love to beat them with the "submit" verses, but fail to remember this one:

Ephesians 5:21
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

They also tend to forget that submit is not to be subject to. I submit a proposal to a client, meaning I offer it to him or her. We offer ourselves to one another in love, out of reverence for Christ. One's genitalia does not mean that one is better suited to make a particular decision.

 

[ScottEmerson]

I believe that it was God's inspired word that says that in Christ, we are all on an equal playing field. This isn't a postmodern thought at all - it is based upon Paul's clear command that in Christ there is "no male or female."

And, as Colorado pointed out, the previous verse insists that we submit to one another - males to females and vice versa.

In your inability to answer the question about why Paul would go about changing his tense, which isn't something that happens in koine Greek as John says it does, he continues to create straw man arguments. Believe that this idea about women's being able to lead men and speak in church isn't based upon a postmodern paradigm, but upon what the Bible says.

Question: Are women aloud to sing songs in church? How does that fit you "Biblical hermeneutic" that says that women should remain silent?