G. A. Riplinger and fundamentalism

[Salamander]

I wonder if I can be GAR's opening act?

All good performances are preceded by clowns.

 

[Salamander]

I agree 100%. Only those who have no excuse for a woman teaching men spiritual truths would call it trivial ot change the meaning to say the passage only applies to an official, organised, recognised church service between 10-7 and 6-7 Sunday and 7-8 on Wednesday.

It is just a clear example of a double-standard. Riplinger can teach men cause some like what she teaches, that is the only reason to argue for her being permitted to teach,

I have found her to be somewhat vague, but also I have found her to be correct in many,many instances.

I do not see her offering any forbidden fruit or telling men how they should do anything concerning worship.

Have you told your wife yet?:wavey:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

"I will therefore that men pray euery where, lifting vp holy handes without wrath, and doubting. In like maner also, that women adorne themselues in modest apparell, with shamefastnesse and sobrietie, not with broided haire, or gold, or pearles, or costly aray, But (which becommeth women professing godlines) with good works. Let the woman learne in silence with all subiection: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to vsurpe authoritie ouer the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eue: And Adam was not deceiued, but the woman being deceiued was in the transgression: Notwithstanding she shall be saued in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charitie, and holinesse, with sobrietie."
(1Ti 2v8-15)


So women need only adorn themselves in modest apparel in an official service? They must only do good works in an official church service?

They must only continue in faith, charitie, holinesse, and sobrietie in an official church service?

 

[Salamander]

"I will therefore that men pray euery where, lifting vp holy handes without wrath, and doubting. In like maner also, that women adorne themselues in modest apparell, with shamefastnesse and sobrietie, not with broided haire, or gold, or pearles, or costly aray, But (which becommeth women professing godlines) with good works. Let the woman learne in silence with all subiection: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to vsurpe authoritie ouer the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eue: And Adam was not deceiued, but the woman being deceiued was in the transgression: Notwithstanding she shall be saued in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charitie, and holinesse, with sobrietie."
(1Ti 2v8-15)


So women need only adorn themselves in modest apparel in service? They must only do good works in a church service?

They must only continue in faith, charitie, holinesse, and sobrietie in a church service?

Do you see this? "Let the woman learne in silence with all subiection:"

Just where is this so happen to occur? If you say everywhere, always at all times, then once you became a man you should have told your mama to "Be Silent!" anytime she tried to instruct you in anything after then.:wavey:

Or would this be a better picture of C4K after telling his mama to be silent?:tonofbricks:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Do you see this? "Let the woman learne in silence with all subiection:"

Just where is this so happen to occur? If you say everywhere, always at all times, then once you became a man you should have told your mama to "Be Silent!" anytime she tried to instruct you in anything after then.:wavey:

Or would this be a better picture of C4K after telling his mama to be silent?:tonofbricks:

I take it you are not going to answer my question?

 

[tinytim]

I am not the one that is saying women cannot teach... this has been a traditional IFB stance.

But the Neo-IFBs go to GAR classes, and forsake this traditional stance.. thus divorcing themselves from the classic IFBs.

They have forsaken this, along with the traditional stance on Bible inspiration for one of myths and legends, and made up things to prove their point...

Was John R Rice a fundamentalist? If so, then read my other thread where he preached a sermon from a Catholic Bible...
Then read this statement from the Neo-Fundamentalist, Jack Hyles...

http://jackhyles.net/enemies.shtml
4. Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed...." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever.

Or this statement where he seems to forget that a lot of people around the world served Christ without having a complete Bible... let alone a KJV..

http://jackhyles.net/enemies.shtml
In order to live as a child of God, I must have a perfect Bible. Matthew 4:41, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Notice the words, "every word." ...
"...God has told us that these pure words would be preserved forever. Psalm 12:7, "Thou shalt keep them, 0 LORD, thou shalt preserve them for this generation forever." Since today is a part of forever, somewhere in the world there must be pure words of God. Hence, it does not satisfy me for someone to say that only in the original do we have the pure words of God. Since there are no original manuscripts today, or for that matter, there are no manuscripts even near the original manuscripts as far as time is concerned, then what these people are saying is
that we do not have anywhere today any book that contains the pure words of God. Yet, I am commanded to preach the Word.
II Timothy 4:2, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." Now since the words of God are pure, and since all of the so-called Bibles do not have the same words, only one can be the real Bible that contains the very words of God, the pure words of God, and the preserved words of God. The purpose of this chapter is not to enter into a discussion about the Textus Receptus or Westcott-Hort; it is simply to say that if God commanded me to preach His Word, He would have to give me His Word to preach, and certainly His Word is pure, because the words of God are pure according to the aforementioned Scriptures and will be preserved forever. This preacher believes that those preserved words are in the Bible that I hold in my right hand at this very moment-the King James Bible!



His statements dive into Bible worship... His Salvation did not come from the "incorruptible seed" known as the KJV... IT came from the Incorruptible Seed known as Jesus... He knows that now.. I just hope he found out before it was too late.

See how the neo-IFBS have twisted Scripture to suit them...
J. R. Rice, new who the incorruptible Seed was... too bad, Jack Hyles thought it was the KJV...


If you believe a woman can teach men spiritual things, at least you are being consistant in your theology.. if you set under GAR.
But you are betraying the fathers of fundamentalism...

 

[tinytim]

All good performances are preceded by clowns.

:wavey: , I don't know if you meant that as an insult, but I laughed!!

 

[Salamander]

:wavey: , I don't know if you meant that as an insult, but I laughed!!

I meant that you might make a good clown.:laugh: Besides, you responded exactly how I knew the man of character should.

 

[Salamander]

I am not the one that is saying women cannot teach... this has been a traditional IFB stance.

But the Neo-IFBs go to GAR classes, and forsake this traditional stance.. thus divorcing themselves from the classic IFBs.

They have forsaken this, along with the traditional stance on Bible inspiration for one of myths and legends, and made up things to prove their point...

Was John R Rice a fundamentalist? If so, then read my other thread where he preached a sermon from a Catholic Bible...
Then read this statement from the Neo-Fundamentalist, Jack Hyles...

http://jackhyles.net/enemies.shtml
4. Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed...." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever.

Or this statement where he seems to forget that a lot of people around the world served Christ without having a complete Bible... let alone a KJV..

http://jackhyles.net/enemies.shtml
In order to live as a child of God, I must have a perfect Bible. Matthew 4:41, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Notice the words, "every word." ...
"...God has told us that these pure words would be preserved forever. Psalm 12:7, "Thou shalt keep them, 0 LORD, thou shalt preserve them for this generation forever." Since today is a part of forever, somewhere in the world there must be pure words of God. Hence, it does not satisfy me for someone to say that only in the original do we have the pure words of God. Since there are no original manuscripts today, or for that matter, there are no manuscripts even near the original manuscripts as far as time is concerned, then what these people are saying is
that we do not have anywhere today any book that contains the pure words of God. Yet, I am commanded to preach the Word.
II Timothy 4:2, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." Now since the words of God are pure, and since all of the so-called Bibles do not have the same words, only one can be the real Bible that contains the very words of God, the pure words of God, and the preserved words of God. The purpose of this chapter is not to enter into a discussion about the Textus Receptus or Westcott-Hort; it is simply to say that if God commanded me to preach His Word, He would have to give me His Word to preach, and certainly His Word is pure, because the words of God are pure according to the aforementioned Scriptures and will be preserved forever. This preacher believes that those preserved words are in the Bible that I hold in my right hand at this very moment-the King James Bible!



His statements dive into Bible worship... His Salvation did not come from the "incorruptible seed" known as the KJV... IT came from the Incorruptible Seed known as Jesus... He knows that now.. I just hope he found out before it was too late.

See how the neo-IFBS have twisted Scripture to suit them...
J. R. Rice, new who the incorruptible Seed was... too bad, Jack Hyles thought it was the KJV...


If you believe a woman can teach men spiritual things, at least you are being consistant in your theology.. if you set under GAR.
But you are betraying the fathers of fundamentalism...

And you and I will never agree with every man or everything any man has to say.

I respect Hyles for what he was allowed of the Lord to do. I respect Rice for all the Lord allowed him to do. But I don't wholeheartedly agree with everything they have done.

Hyles? Too much likened to easy believingism.

Rice? I don't know of anything specific, but if he preached from the Douway, it does contain the Gospel, intact.

I used a Douway to show a catholic woman how to be saved in her house while doing some work there. I didn't have my Bible in my tool tray at the time.

Have I transgressed?:sleeping_2:

 

[tinytim]

And you and I will never agree with every man or everything any man has to say.

I respect Hyles for what he was allowed of the Lord to do. I respect Rice for all the Lord allowed him to do. But I don't wholeheartedly agree with everything they have done.

Hyles? Too much likened to easy believingism.

Rice? I don't know of anything specific, but if he preached from the Douway, it does contain the Gospel, intact.

I used a Douway to show a catholic woman how to be saved in her house while doing some work there. I didn't have my Bible in my tool tray at the time.

Have I transgressed?:sleeping_2:

We finally agree.. . On Hyles, and I remember my dad using the Douey..(I think that's how you spell it) leading my uncle to Christ...

YOu may say you are KJVO.. but I think you are more like me... KJVP... with this new revelation!!!

 

[tinytim]

I meant that you might make a good clown.:laugh: Besides, you responded exactly how I knew the man of character should.

This reminded me of an event a couple yrs ago..
I took the children in our youth group to a circus, and they needed volunteers to be a clown....

Guess who got dressed up!

yep... my son's brought the pictures out this past week....

So I would make a good clown...

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Do you see this? "Let the woman learne in silence with all subiection:"

Just where is this so happen to occur?

So tell me and anyone else interested....WHEN and WHERE is this command to women TO BE OBSERVED?

You make it clear your objections to the traditional view in fundie circles...but with your criticism is the absence of WHEN and WHERE it is TO BE OBSERVED?

I look forward to your detailed response.:thumbs:

 

[tinytim]

So tell me and anyone else interested....WHEN and WHERE is this command to women TO BE OBSERVED?

You make it clear your objections to the traditional view in fundie circles...but with your criticism is the absence of WHEN and WHERE it is TO BE OBSERVED?

I look forward to your detailed response.:thumbs:

In a perfect world?...... nah... better not.. to many women here!!!:laugh: :laugh:

:tonofbricks:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

So tell me and anyone else interested....WHEN and WHERE is this command to women TO BE OBSERVED?

You make it clear your objections to the traditional view in fundie circles...but with your criticism is the absence of WHEN and WHERE it is TO BE OBSERVED?

I look forward to your detailed response.:thumbs:

The non-response is telling.

 

[Rippon]

"The non-response is telling" . Isn't that the truth Q ? It has multiple applications .

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

"The non-response is telling" . Isn't that the truth Q ? It has multiple applications .

It does indeed, but for this thread I was only aiming for those who object to "learning in silence" to explain When and Where it is to be done.

 

[rbell]

Again the SBC proclaims to have all the goods on the Bible, yet they aren't sure what it is exactly. They certainly stab at everyone who stands on the KJB and attack them and the Bible consistently.

Even satan is consistent in a few things, but his consistency is compiled and only fits into only three catagories: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the PRIDE of life.

I would never have Riplinger stand behind the pulpit, ever, but I would invite her to teach a lesson on the Bible and leave it up to the priesthood of the believer to accept or deny her teaching.

Those who have had her behind the pulpit have that right as being independent and not to be controlled by any association.

"Mob rules" in the SBC.:laugh:

Nice to see that you are an authority on all things SBC. But of course, no pride there.

There is no wholesale, co-ordinated attacking of the Bible by SBC...but hey, no since in letting the truth get in the way of a good attack.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Salamander, you need to remember for many here what the SBC has to say has been irrelevant since the 1830s, yes the eighteen thirties.

 

[tinytim]

Salamander, you need to remember for many here what the SBC has to say has been irrelevant since the 1830s, yes the eighteen thirties.

Yeah, Go ABC/USA!!!!

Ok, I will go crawl back in my hole before some of you bomb me with bricks.... :tonofbricks:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Salamander, you need to remember for many here what the SBC has to say has been irrelevant since the 1830s, yes the eighteen thirties.

For many in the SBC what the Convention as a whole has to say is irrelevant.