Women Pastors

It is just amazing to me that people "CHRISTIANS" will not accept the word of God. They say they come up with stuff on their own and that the Holy Spirit is the one that leads their life and gives instruction or their own conscience, yet if it were not for the Bible they would be without any instruction. How would they even know about the Holy Spirit, Chirst or God. The only record we have is through the Bible. Sure we could say it would be passed down by word of mouth, but just think how messed up it would be by now. I don't know obviously I am just an old-fashioned Baptist who still believes the Bible was written inspired by God and given to us for instruction and that you can trust every word of it. I also believe it will never run contrary to itself. Call it Bible worship or whatever you will but to me it is just the fundamentals of Christianity, but then again the fundamentals seem to be what many are determined to undermine and destroy.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
Textual criticism helps us find out what Jesus actually said and did and what his followers claim he said and did. Sometimes the two conclusions are very different, and sometimes they are very similar. If the conclusions are similar, then we can be fairly sure that the words and deeds of Christ in that passage are authentic. The only thing we can be absolutely certain about, though, is the Christ who lives within us as perfect revelation.

Daniel Payne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not comfortable with this line of reasoning. It leaves too much of the scripture open to doubt. If the Creator of the universe and all that's in it could not guide His people in the creation of the Bible, then that Creator is not really as powerful as I thought.

After all, how hard could it be for the Holy Spirit to guide Paul and the other writers in their ministeries and writings? Or to guide others in the formation of the canon?

We may have slightly different manuscripts in some cases, but to say the actual quotations are inacurate goes too far, in my very humble opinion.

 

Glory Bound,

How do you know it was God's intention to give us a perfect book? You don't. It's an assumption that fundamentalists make by twisting Scriptures like "All Scripture is given by inspiriation...." and "The word of the Lord will stand forever", etc. There are two problems here: not a single person konws what in the world "inspiration" means except "God-breathed." That could mean any number of things. Second - what is the "word" of God? If it is the story of how God has interacted with his people, then sure, it will stand forever. The story is preserved.

Kellisa writes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They say they come up with stuff on their own and that the Holy Spirit is the one that leads their life and gives instruction or their own conscience, yet if it were not for the Bible they would be without any instruction. How would they even know about the Holy Spirit, Chirst or God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you do not know the Holy Spirit, Christ, or God apart from Scripture, then you cannot be a Christian. That is what being a Christian is all about - not knowing a book, but knowing a person. Kellisa, if a book were never written about you, but I met you in person one day, I could get to know you (everything about you if I spent enough time with you). It is the same with Christ. Sure, the Bible points toward Christ, but Christianity is about a person, not a book.

Daniel Payne

 

I understand that it is about Christ and who he is but how would you have ever known you could enter into a personal relationship with him if it were not for the Bible.

 

The same way Paul did, for one.

 

David wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Two ways. First, Jesus spoke to me as he has to every Christian, and he answered when I asked him to come into my life (I believe Paul may have had a similar experience if what I read in Acts is true). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know Jesus spoke to you? How do you know He speaks to every Christian? How do you know He answered you? How do you know He came into your life? How do you know Paul's "experience"? How do you know his experience is valid?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Second, the accounts of Jesus' life as recorded in the Gospels <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know these are true? Gospel writers were just as sinful as Paul, yet you distrust his writings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Jesus deserves preeminance b/c he is the risen Lord. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know He is risen?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I accept the Gospels testimony (as a whole)about his life <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? As stated before, they were written by sinful men just like Paul, whose writings you think cannot be trusted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Look, believe the bible is inerrent if you want to. But I don't know of any account in the bible or otherwise where it from the sky leather-bound in the King James version and landed on a pullpit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ad-hominem.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ultimately, it is a collection of works that PEOPLE, NOT GOD decided to include together in a gathered work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know? You seem to be presuming facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While I believe these works as a whole ultimately point us to salvation in Christ and can be used as a guide for faith and practice, the ultimate authority is Christ, who lives in our hearts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know this? Given your (lack of)logic, if I decide the Bible doesn't point to salvation in Christ, my experience is just as valid as yours. How do you know Christ lives in your heart? Our hearts? And you've never answered the question as to why Christ should be given ANY kind of authority, save for your own opinion that he should be given such. Why is your opinion higher than that of the Biblical authors?

Since I have no confidence you are going to stop with your circular reasonings, I fear we are at an impasse and have been since you started. You have no basis for knowledge that is certain. That is the fallacy behind your logic, or lack thereof. You argue away an objective source of truth while exalting subjectivity as objective. There is no consistency to your arguments. I hope this is a lesson to those who read these posts.

 

I think the striking difference between Daniel, David, & Joshua the many of the rest of the Baptist Board members is this - you three close off about 2/3 of the New Testament and by your principle methodology take it or leave it as needed. Then you all make the claim for Jesus as the criterion, but are left with having to take whichever Jesus you come up with based on your textual criticism (or someone else's). Fine, if that's what you want to do - go ahead. But I see that you are very inconsistent because some of your theology just doesn't come from the gospels - you have to go to the dreaded epistles to get it. There are several areas of doctrine that you have not successfully answered as to where you get it, if you don't get it from Paul. David is willing to admit the facts: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the real answer to the question is ultimately personal and subjective...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Daniel said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...It's not as easy as accepting all the Bible blindly, but it is more honest. It has to be done because two or more pictures of who Jesus was and what his mission was are presented in the NT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, most primitivists, conservatives, and fundamentalists are not only Biblolators, but blind dishonest ones at that?!! Just because we come up with a different view of who Jesus was, doesn't mean we are dishonest. Nor does it mean we haven't taken a good look. The fact that Jesus chose 12 ALL MALE apostles is not the only fact I know about Jesus, but it is a fact (unless by your textual criticism you have determined it to be a myth). It should not be taken lightly and should be given proper consideration. Did Jesus find it important that all the "chosen" representatives be of the male gender? Were there no qualified women available? Was He not the visionary "social revolutionary" who bucked the status quo, but rather one who conformed to the social standards of the day? Was there some other reason that He chose ONLY apostles of the MALE gender?? It seems to me that choosing any of these options creates somewhat of a dilemna for your theology. Maybe you have a different answer. If so I'd like to see you deal with the issue, rather than just run to a case where a woman can be named as a disciple. I don't think anyone here has denied the importance or existence of female disciples.

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Daniel wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Textual criticism helps us find out what Jesus actually said and did and what his followers claim he said and did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know it will do this? What makes textual criticism of NT documents (or any documents) a valid source of knowledge? You keep making this assertion without offering proof as to why.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sometimes the two conclusions are very different, and sometimes they are very similar. If the conclusions are similar, then we can be fairly sure that the words and deeds of Christ in that passage are authentic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But who decides if the conclusions are similar? Who are the inspired folks who make this decision? What is the definition of "similar"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The only thing we can be absolutely certain about, though, is the Christ who lives within us as perfect revelation<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You keep saying this, and you keep getting asked 'How do you know this' and you have not proffered up evidence yet. How do you know Christ lives in people and that He is perfect revelation?

 

Is who Jesus is the criterion for textual criticism or is textual criticism the criterion for who Jesus is??

 

David & Daniel,
I mean no disrespect, but I keep asking questions which keep being ignored, so I'm not going to waste any more of your time or mine. I'm sure we all have way too much to do, so continuing to go in circles isn't really productive. I look forward to seeing you all around.

Daniel,
I do find it interesting that the arguments you used against Kelisa and GloryBound to "hang" (My word) "fundamentalists" (your word) are the same arguments which hang your own opinions.

Again, I look forward to seeing you all around.

(By the way, has anyone else noticed how far off topic this thread is?

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Just an observation, but it seems that every thread I have talked to Daniel on turns out to be about the authority of the Bible. I'm am not trying to disrespect you either, but many Christians are going to use the Bible to defend their points so it seems it will always be a never ending circle of if the Bible is correct, whatever the topic is.

 

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

(By the way, has anyone else noticed how far off topic this thread is?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noticed! I think we've just about chased this rabbit to death.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled subject of women pastors:

Is the lack of mention regarding women in these roles a cultural thing, or something meant to exclude them forever from occupying these positions in the church? I've heard both views - which is right?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I think the striking difference between Daniel, David, & Joshua the many of the rest of the Baptist Board members is this - you three close off about 2/3 of the New Testament and by your principle methodology take it or leave it as needed. Then you all make the claim for Jesus as the criterion, but are left with having to take whichever Jesus you come up with based on your textual criticism (or someone else's). Fine, if that's what you want to do - go ahead. But I see that you are very inconsistent because some of your theology just doesn't come from the gospels - you have to go to the dreaded epistles to get it. There are several areas of doctrine that you have not successfully answered as to where you get it, if you don't get it from Paul....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RLV, it's more complex than that. In many cases, the epistle authors are clearly writing specific advice for specific situations. In others, they are writing general theological principles (sometimes emphasizing apparently contradictory ones to address specific needs). I don't think we should ignore any part of Scripture, but I don't think we should pretend that every word of it was intended to be absolute and binding for all places and all time.

Joshua

 

Glory Bound, re: women pastors, I feel that since Jesus radically opposed the custom of the day by treating women equally (healing, feeding, talking to them, etc.), that he was saying women are equal, and would allow them equal access to the pullpit.
It seems like Baptists, who have sent women missionaries (ever hear of Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong?) and let theses women preach and baptise for 100 years or so would acknowledge that if women are good enough for the Chinese and Africans, they are good enough for the predominately white SBC, too.

 

He doesn't tell the woman to go out and make a living for the family, he lays that responsiblity on the man, just like he doesn't tell the man to be the keeper of the home. He has given us each (male and female) different positions. He made us different for a reason and that was to fulfill the work he has given us.