• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Woman senior pastor

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reynolds said:
I did not say it was not flawed. It is flawed just as every attempt to model the Trinity is flawed.every attempt to model the Trinity contains a heresy. When one tries to take the Trinity and put it in a neat box, it does not work.
"Saint Patrick's bad analogies" on youtube pretty accurately, and quite comically sums up my Trinitarian view.
Click to expand...

First it is not just flawed it is in complete error with no amount of truth to it. It is inferior not equal to all other attempts to discuss the Trinity. God is three distinct persons and yet is one God. How does that work? We do not know exactly but modalism denies three distinct person. Therefore it is a non starter
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
First it is not just flawed it is in complete error with no amount of truth to it. It is inferior not equal to all other attempts to discuss the Trinity. God is three distinct persons and yet is one God. How does that work? We do not know exactly but modalism denies three distinct person. Therefore it is a non starter
Click to expand...
Heresy is heresy. I personally do not measure it by degrees. Some might, by I see it as pointless to do so. Unfortunately, Modalism is a very common heresy in the SBC. (I can't speak for other Baptist denominations) .My orig. Point was that all attempts to model the Trinity contains error and are therefore incorrect. We should avoid using any of them.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reynolds said:
Heresy is heresy. I personally do not measure it by degrees. Some might, by I see it as pointless to do so. Unfortunately, Modalism is a very common heresy in the SBC. (I can't speak for other Baptist denominations) .My orig. Point was that all attempts to model the Trinity contains error and are therefore incorrect. We should avoid using any of them.
Click to expand...

In the SBC? Can you point me to anyone in the SBC who holds to modalism?
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
In the SBC? Can you point me to anyone in the SBC who holds to modalism?
Click to expand...
He might be thinking of this widely circulated tweet, but I am not certain it is real since I have not reviewed Dr. Patterson's feed:
paige-patterson-tweet-tiff.jpg

BO4kWx
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
The irony of this statement is that Ellis wants you to believe Paul. He wants you to take a closer look at all of Paul's writings and practice instead of simply a few prooftexts.
Click to expand...
Can he provide ANY passages that state that women can be pastors/elders?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
At least we have some agreement.


I don't know why we are talking about models, we can state the truth of the Triune God from scripture - using scripture - in an appropriate and meaningful way without it being flawed.


We shouldn't be formulating models to begin with. We should simply and carefully examine the scriptures closely and speak their truth.


I don't think anyone has claimed they are vague.


Within the original language, within the original culture, within the original context, it was probably fairly clear, although Peter had trouble understanding some of Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:16) and he had all the advantages we do not.

We should not be so arrogant to assume that our initial understand is the correct one without careful study.


To be blunt, on their face, Paul's writings on women in the ministry of the church are contradictory - even in the same book ("Women should remain silent in the churches, they are not allow to speak..." vs. "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head." See 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Corinthians 11:5a respectively).

On it's face, absolutely and concretely, Paul is contradicting himself within the space of three chapters as the letter is divided today. Obviously there is something else going on here. Do you believe Paul didn't know what he was talking about or are you going to just brush it off and continue to hold the view that suits your prejudices the best? A student of scripture knows that the surface ("the face") of the "plain" meaning of scripture is not necessarily the right one.

I know I will not change your mind, but I also don't want you to blind yourself to the scriptures in disobedience to the calling of Christ. You will be held accountable for everything you have learned and also how you have blinded yourself from the things of God.
Click to expand...
Van you give to us ANY passage that states a women was either a pastor'elder with any assembly in the NT?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
That's the kind of response I get from United Pentecostals and cultists when I attempt to demonstrate the validity of the Trinity through the scriptures.
Click to expand...
His point is valid, as there is no way to see the scriptures allowing for female pastors/elders!
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
Yet you had no such compulsion about falsely defaming E. Earle Ellis in a public forum...
Click to expand...
He is not a personal friend. However he goes about justifying women pastors, he is still wrong.
I actually respect the classic Pentecostal response the most. They admit it is in violation to scripture, they just do it anyway. I am close friends wit and will admit, have even preached in the pulpit of a woman Pentecostal pastor. She has told me several times that she knows what the scripture says. She knows she is wrong, but she "feels called." My answer always is "I ain't your judge. I personally will side with scripture. What you do is between you and God."
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
Funny how you ask the question and then assert that there can be no answer. You have closed your mind to any position other than yours.
Click to expand...
No, rather that I am not swayed by positions that would be stating what cultural demands to be the truth, and what God says that it is!
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ordered Ellis's book. Got it yesterday. Haven't started reading. I don't agree with his position, but want to be aware of what his apologetic is.

All my life growing up I knew people who practiced sprinkling or pouring for (in place of) baptism. None (that I was aware of) ever bothered to defend it scripturally -- just took the position mode didn't matter. Then several years ago I ran across a tract on baptism from the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, which made a scriptural argument for/defense of pouring as the proper mode of baptism. I don't agree and wasn't convinced, but it was intriguing to see someone actually defend the position they practiced. This is kind of how I feel about what you've said about Earle Ellis's book.
 
C

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reynolds said:
I did not say it was not flawed. It is flawed just as every attempt to model the Trinity is flawed.every attempt to model the Trinity contains a heresy. When one tries to take the Trinity and put it in a neat box, it does not work.
"Saint Patrick's bad analogies" on youtube pretty accurately, and quite comically sums up my Trinitarian view.
Click to expand...

Modalism is not a model or analogy, it's a heretical view of the Trinity. It states there is only 1 Person in the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top