Historic Riverside Church recommends first woman as senior minister

[Zaac]

I am saying there are times Paul said "This is from God" and I believe it was. There are times Paul says "This is not God speaking" and I believe he is speaking his own opinion and not for God.

But Scripture tells us that ALL of it is inspired of God. He didn't give us the word, no matter who said what, for us to disobey it. If that were the intent, there was no reason to put it in there.

There are many times he does not say it is from God nor from him. I believe if he believe those words were directly from God he would have said so. So in those instances I believe he is speaking his own opinion and we must take them as opinion within the culture he lived in.

I go back to what I said earlier. God is not a God of confusion. He is a God of ORDER. He did not inspire the words, have them included in Scripture, and then expect for us to say "oh that's just Paul's opinion and not God's truth". That authors confusion and is inconsistent with God's character. And itopens the door for folks to say that was John's opinion or that was whomever's opinion so why should I believe it as the truth?

Basically women had no status and because he lived then that was his opinion, though if you read Paul in chronological order you will see him modifying his thinking about women.

He doesn't modify his thinking on women overseeing men in the church. For that to be the case, you would have to undo Godly submission as well as the structure of the family that illustrates the principle of Godly submission and order. I say again, SCRPTURE says that this structure is God's way of producing Godly offspring. And if this has changed, there was no purpose to the Cross.

Paul does not condemn slavery and I believe again he is speaking his opinion, not God's. Thus I believe Paul would condemn slavery if he were alive today and would approve of women in ministry.

Paul didn't have to condemn slavery. The Exodus shows what God thinks of slavery. Why, after that exhaustive display of freeing people from enslavement would Paul need to speak to it?

You cannot show any verse where Paul says all his writings are directly from God. You and I can show he did not believe all his words were from God.

Do you believe ALL Scripture is inspired of God?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I cut your quote, but this is already plenty. It is only I Corinthians 7 that Paul makes a separation of this type. What he said when it was "speak I, not Lord," it was various rules about marrying and remarrying. But when he specifically said it was "...not I, but the Lord," it was: "A wife must not separate from her husband." So I just want to know--- since Paul said plainly it was from the Lord and not from himself, then a wife must not separate from her husband for any reason? [Let's just see if you really believe that part about it being from God when Paul says so, or whether anything he wrote is up for reconsideration.]

In that passage, a few verses later, he says he is giving his opinion.

But the more important question is what about all the passages where he does not say if what he is writing is his opinion or from God. These are articles of faith that cannot be proved either way, but must be taken in a way that makes them rational and logical. As I said in an earlier post I firmly believe that if Paul were alive today and writing he would condemn slavery. In his writings at that time he does not though I believe that God never approved of slavery, especially slavery as practiced in the US.

 

[Zaac]

You can always tell a liberal. They do not believe all of the word of God.

This isn't politics. Being liberal or conservative is irrelevant. This is an issue of standing firmly on the word of God or opening the door to undo the word of God as the Christian standard of truth. The latter is a dangerous thing.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But the more important question is what about all the passages where he does not say if what he is writing is his opinion or from God.

There is only one reason he would say, "this me, not God," and that is he never otherwise departs from God's inspiration. The only reason he bothers saying, "this is God, not me" is to differentiate between his opinion and God's sovereign inspiration. It is ignorant to think he ever records anything else that is "just him" when he doesn't bother to say that he is. You are attempting to destroy God's word with useless and needless speculation.

 

[annsni]

I am saying there are times Paul said "This is from God" and I believe it was. There are times Paul says "This is not God speaking" and I believe he is speaking his own opinion and not for God. There are many times he does not say it is from God nor from him. I believe if he believe those words were directly from God he would have said so. So in those instances I believe he is speaking his own opinion and we must take them as opinion within the culture he lived in. Basically women had no status and because he lived then that was his opinion, though if you read Paul in chronological order you will see him modifying his thinking about women. Paul does not condemn slavery and I believe again he is speaking his opinion, not God's. Thus I believe Paul would condemn slavery if he were alive today and would approve of women in ministry.

You cannot show any verse where Paul says all his writings are directly from God. You and I can show he did not believe all his words were from God.

Where does Peter say that his words are words from God? Or how about John? I guess the gospel writers can't be trusted in their narrative either.

Paul speaks specifically when he did not hear from God about something but gave his opinion - yet God allowed it in His Word and thus we can be assured that it is His will as well. There is one instance of him saying this in all of his letters. Do we discount all of his writings because of this?

Watch out you are coming very close to slander in your statement if in fact you have not already stepped over the line.

Awesome. I mean what I say.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

He didn't say they were untrustworthy, but he did say several places, This is my opinion, not directly from God. Thus, you have to consider the time, place, situation and culture that Paul both lived in and was addressing.

To consider this honestly is very troublesome to many, especially fundamentalists. It does not bother me at all. It only shows that Paul was being very honest. There are people who go to great lengths to try to explain why Paul saying that what he is writing is his opinion is really directly from God. However that is not being honest.

It's not troublesome to those who believe. Since you cannot tell me where Paul told us not to believe him, I'd say you are the one having trouble.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's not troublesome to those who believe. Since you cannot tell me where Paul told us not to believe him, I'd say you are the one having trouble.

$600,000 to pastor a church in NYC.......600,000! Wow. Wonder what they want you to tithe? Does she also get a limo driver?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

BTW, read the mission statement of the church. It can't be called a true New Testament church. More like a club. I spent about 20 minutes, myself.

 

[John I Morris]

From 70 to 150 in attendance in eleven years, if I am correct in my reading, is hardly "fill up a church" in my humble opinion. I have done that in a few churches in a lot less years, churches that were not in the middle of town...

 

[quantumfaith]

It's not troublesome to those who believe. Since you cannot tell me where Paul told us not to believe him, I'd say you are the one having trouble.

Bro Curtis, what precisely do you mean by "those who believe"?

 

[annsni]

BTW, read the mission statement of the church. It can't be called a true New Testament church. More like a club. I spent about 20 minutes, myself.

It makes me ill to think of what people hide under the guise of a church.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Bro Curtis, what precisely do you mean by "those who believe"?

Those who believe there isn't one thing in the Bible to doubt.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It makes me ill to think of what people hide under the guise of a church.

I makes me ill to have his confessed children hold it up as a good example.

 

[Alcott]

In that passage, a few verses later, he says he is giving his opinion.

In the particular phrase in question, in verse 10, he does say "not I, but the Lord." You're not going to make a point of Paul's differentiating whether the words are his or the Lord's, and then bypass your own thesis in where he said it IS the Lord by saying, "In that passage, a few verses later, he says....."

 

[brotherG]

What is Progressive Christianity?

Can someone explain to me what "Progressive Christianity" is - exactly? What is it progressing toward? Is it developmental? Are there steps or stages? Who leads this and from what source are the guidelines?

 

[annsni]

Can someone explain to me what "Progressive Christianity" is - exactly? What is it progressing toward? Is it developmental? Are there steps or stages? Who leads this and from what source are the guidelines?

I found this on gotquestions.org

Question: "What is Progressive Christianity, and is it biblical?"

Answer: Progressive Christianity is a recent movement in Protestantism which focuses strongly on social justice and environmentalism and often includes a revisionist (or non-traditional) view of the Scriptures. Since the movement entails a number of different beliefs and views on various topics, it is difficult to label the whole movement decisively as “biblical” or “unbiblical.” Each claim and belief of any movement should be filtered through the Word of God and whatever does not line up with Scripture should be rejected.

The Bible is clearly replete with instructions to “visit orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27, NASB) and to protect the environment which God has entrusted to us (Genesis 1:28). Insofar as Progressive Christianity is a movement which seeks to emphasize and honor these principles, it certainly lines up with Scripture. However, there are some aspects of Progressive Christianity which contradict a biblical worldview. In general, members of this movement do not ascribe to the biblical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, and again in general, do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Progressive Christianity also tends to emphasize what is known as “collective salvation” over the biblical concept of personal salvation. The Bible is clear that God redeems those individuals who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior from their sins and rescues them from an eternity of being separated from Him in torment. Collective salvation, by contrast, emphasizes the restoration of whole cultures and societies to what progressive Christians believe is the correct socioeconomic structure, namely, Marxism. Marxism, in turn, is a theory of economics and politics developed by an atheist (Karl Marx) from unbiblical assumptions.

In this sense, then, the views of many progressive Christians do not fit with biblical principles. In the end, however, discretion must be used in evaluating a particular claim or belief in terms of Scripture; the whole spectrum of beliefs identified by the term “Progressive Christianity” is too broad to permit an unequivocal conclusion as to whether or not it can be labeled unbiblical. As with all uncertain issues, the Christian would do well to compare each claim of those in the Progressive Christianity movement with Scripture, asking God for the wisdom to discern truth from error. He has promised wisdom to all who seek it (James 1:5).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/progressive-Christianity.html#ixzz32V5DfYh6

 

[Revmitchell]

Can someone explain to me what "Progressive Christianity" is - exactly? What is it progressing toward? Is it developmental? Are there steps or stages? Who leads this and from what source are the guidelines?

It is theological liberalism. It is a reliance on experience over scripture. It is about a worldly agenda wrapped up in Jesus.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is theological liberalism. It is a reliance on experience over scripture. It is about a worldly agenda wrapped up in Jesus.

As he so often does Rev. posts a reply that is wrong and without substance.

Eight points of Progressive Christians:

By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who…

1. Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;

2. Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;

3. Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:

Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
Believers and agnostics,
Women and men,
Those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
Those of all classes and abilities;

4. Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;

5. Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;

6. Strive for peace and justice among all people;

7. Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;

8. Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love.

http://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/

 

[Bro. James]

How about false doctrine with a pseudo Christian façade? This is more man-made religion from the Cainites. See Jude 1-25.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Don]

Item 2: "There are many roads, not just one"
Item 3: "Sinners are equal to the saved"
Item 5: "The Bible is more a set of guidelines than actual rules"

Without moral absolutes, there are no moral absolutes. Consider carefully.