Women Pastors

Actually Larry, that's Paul. I know fundamentalists confuse him with God, but he's not; and his advice to his local congregations is not to be confused with the vocie of Jesus (who invited Mary to sit at his feet in the position of a disciple).

Joshua

 

If it's in the bible then God said it. If you believe the bible is the word of God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually Larry, that's Paul. I know fundamentalists confuse him with God, but he's not; and his advice to his local congregations is not to be confused with the vocie of Jesus (who invited Mary to sit at his feet in the position of a disciple). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Josh, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Or do you believe that only some of it is the word of God?
Because that would explain how you can disobey the Bible and still think that you are alright with God...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Actually Larry, that's Paul. I know fundamentalists confuse him with God, but he's not; and his advice to his local congregations is not to be confused with the vocie of Jesus (who invited Mary to sit at his feet in the position of a disciple).

Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know any fundamentalist who confuses Paul with God. In fact, if they did, they would no longer be a fundamentalist because they would be denying the creator/creature distinction, a fundamental doctrine. In fact, they would probably not even be a Christian since they would be denying the fundamental attributes of God.

However, what Paul wrote is a part of Scripture and since all Scripture is God-breathed (holy men spoke it as they were moved by the Holy Spirit) then I think it is simply an error of theology to attribute the writings of Paul in Scripture as anything other than the voice of God. As Michael has tried to pin on us, here is a clear example of where you interpret the Word however you want to regardless of what it says. When man fails to submit himself to God through his revelation the road is hard.

And you are right that Jesus invited Mary to sit at his feet as a disciple. You could not be more right. Notice however that he did not invite her to sit as his feet as a pastor or an apostle. The former we agree on; however we are not talking about that. We are talking about the latter. In which case, your illustration has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
We've seen this before: the scribes and Pharisees were the self-appointed defenders and interpreters of the Law--the scriptures--until Jesus reminded them that He was Lord over the Law.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't Jesus. That was the evangelist who attributed that to Jesus. You have confused the evangelist with Jesus.

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Haven't been around much the last couple of days. Been down in the C v. E forum. You ought to hang around there Michael. You could befriend some of the heathens. But I see you're too busy edifying the saints.

 

Sorry for butting in, but....

His advice?!?

Didn't Paul say he was taught by Jesus Himself for several years?

Isn't the Bible the inspired Word of God?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if Paul "advised" someone, he was doing so as the conduit through which God was actually giving the "advice"?

I'm sorry, Josh, but you seem to be one of those people who are looking at the Bible through YOUR ideas rather than having your ideas through the Bible....

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Dance, Larry, dance!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's dancing? I don't believe what I wrote in that post. I was simply showing the absurdity of your argument that Paul's words are not God's words. Your position cannot stand to be judged by the same standard you judge the other position by. It simply cannot stand up under scrutiny.

You are the one dancing because you want to say some authors got God's words right and some got them wrong. You have no objective basis for that (as I have demonstrated other places). Your judgment is simply what you like or what you can reconcile in your depraved and finite mind (that is not personal -- all our minds are that way). You have decided you can choose which Scriptural author wrote God's words properly and which did not. I have chosen to believe that all the Scriptural authors were inspired by God as the Holy Spirit bore them along. I have a Scriptural basis for my position. Your basis depends on denying the Scripture you are trying to interpret.

You are the one making distinctions and having to dance around the whole words issue. I believe they are all God's words; I don't have to dance. You are the one with the difficulty.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
So the writings in the Bible of PAUL are not to be confused with the Word of God? Let's get out the penknife! This is drifting ever closer to heresy rather than to just avery non-baptist abberrent view of inspiration.

Question: Do SBC seminaries teach this stuff? I have a wonderful young man who is just starting Louisville this term and you guys are scaring me!

Question: How long will it be before the liberal wing of the SBC (CBF or whatever that Joshua and Michael have referenced elsewhere) drops the name "Baptist" so that they truly can promote other doctrines openly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob, I don't think we stop being baptist because we continue in the tradition of 20th century baptist theologians who do not hold to simple biblicism.

Yes the Bible is authoritative and inspired, but there are places where God/Jesus speaks, and there are places where the biblical authors speak. Part of "rightly dividing the word" is recognizing what roles different parts of the Bible play in shaping our theology.

There are certainly times when Paul is making clear theological statements that are intednded to help all Christians understand the significance of Christ's teachings and their relationship to Judaism. There are other places where he is clearly giving advice to specific congregations.

He is not speaking with the voice of God, but rather with the voice of one set aside by God to be one of the leaders and guides for the Church. This is an important distinction.

It is also one that I'm sure is no longer taught at Southern in Louisville or what's left of the other five SBC seminaries now that the fundamentalists have cleaned house. I don't remember anyone at McAfee, however, being uncomfortable with it; and I doubt that anyone at the other 10 Cooperative Baptist Fellowship partner schools would be. Since all of those schools award M.Div.'s to women and train them to serve as pastors, I doubt they would support the stand many have taken on this board.

Joshua

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
If you ever start interpreting all scripture consistently, I'll start listening to you seriously. At least the Primitive Baptists are consistent in their interpretation of scripture--which has earned my respect for them, even on points where I disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a convenient way to change the subject so you don't have to deal with your own inconsistency. I notice that in your responses to me, you have not addressed one passage of Scripture or one theological idea. The best you can come up with is some retort about me.

However, you have yet to show one passage that I have interpreted out of context. For you "consistency" means in agreement with what Mike thinks. For me, consistency means in agreement with the grammatical-historical context that it was written in. For you, you start with the presupposition that parts of Scripture are dispensable. For me, I start with the presupposition that All Scripture is God breathed and authoritative for life. I do not reject certain parts that should apply to me.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Larry,


I have posted scripture to so many different people that i can't remember when and what I posted to you. I'm sure that you would and have twisted it, though--that's what many fundamentalists do.


I've asked this before, and just recently, but I'll ask it again: Do you forbid women to braid their hair? Do you forbid women to speak once they enter the church doors? Do you forbid women to wear gold and pearls? Do you forbid women to cut their hair? Do you require women to wear a head covering? Do you require men to keep their hair short? And, by the way, define "short" and "long." Do you allow musical instruments in church? If so, since they are not sanctioned in the New Testament, you are not following your own method of interpretation.


BTW, I hope you recognized that my questions/statements above are based on certain scripture passages. Since you say that ALL scripture is authoritative for life, and since you also say that you do not reject certain parts of it, you are required by your own hermeneutic to follow literally the passages of scripture that I have referenced. If you don't, you are inconsistent, and worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen Michael

I doubt that many fundamentalists really see the folly of their ways. They go to their prescribed passages to justify whatever their traditions have taught them. CONSISTENT application would lead against their traditions in many ways (often against good old fashion Spirit-led common sense as well).

Not many (i take that back, not ANY) follow the OT law to the letter despite Matt 5:18-19 clear statement that the letter of the Law still applies until "heaven and earth have passed away".

BE REALISTIC. Inerrancy is untenable. I don't have too many arguments with fundamentalists on spiritual matters or life decisions. We usually agree. But their dogged fear of a realistic biblical assessment, strikes me as obsessive.

GOOD NEWS!: FAITH SURVIVES (AND THRIVES) W/O INERRANCY unlike the fear of our more conservative Brethern.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have posted scripture to so many different people that i can't remember when and what I posted to you. I'm sure that you would and have twisted it, though--that's what many fundamentalists do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shows the bankruptcy of your ways. You say you don’t know what you posted to me (too lazy to look it up as you accused someone else of being????) but you are sure (without proof) that I would have twisted it. You cannot argue on the facts, just as you can’t with Scripture. You are left to ad hominem attacks on people with whom you disagree. It reminds of an old saying, “When your point gets weak just shout a little louder” – or attack your enemies

I have never answered your questions because 1) they have never been addressed to me, 2) because you never answer the questions anyone puts to you. Several posts ago, I listed a number of things that you simply refuse to respond to. You don’t want to defend your beliefs, you just want to attack others.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you forbid women to braid their hair? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you forbid women to speak once they enter the church doors? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you forbid women to wear gold and pearls?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you forbid women to cut their hair? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you require women to wear a head covering?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you require men to keep their hair short? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And, by the way, define "short" and "long."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All the sudden you want to define the terms. How very convenient. You didn’t want to do that on the above questions because you know the context in which you have asked those questions from blows your whole theory out of the water. If you define those as Scripture has, your position falls. By the way, long and short, are defined by distinction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you allow musical instruments in church? If so, since they are not sanctioned in the New Testament, you are not following your own method of interpretation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do. However, you show your misunderstanding by faulting my method of interpretation. You simply do not understand interpretation if you make a statement like that. I also have hymnbooks and pew Bibles, neither of which they had in the NT. We have a number of things that were not used then. What we do not have is things that were forbidden.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Since you say that ALL scripture is authoritative for life, and since you also say that you do not reject certain parts of it, you are required by your own hermeneutic to follow literally the passages of scripture that I have referenced. If you don't, you are inconsistent, and worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you are required, as I previously said, to understand the context of those passages. Your questions go away when you take the time to study what is said and why it is said. It is easier to throw ridiculous and foolish questions around than it is to study. Every one of your questions has biblical answers that are clear from the contexts. You have never practiced any exegesis as is obvious from your questions. You would not ask them if you had the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. If you understood basic principles of Bible study, you would not be asking these questions. You have decided in your mind what you want to believe and you interpret everything around that. So be it – Michael.

If you are going to involve yourself in these discussions, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to. When someone asks a question or makes a point, address that point. Do not devolve into baseless and useless attacks. It is wholly unproductive. In the course of church history, your views are in the minority. That does not make them wrong; but it should give pause for thought.

 

I have noticed several people jog back and forth on this post about consistency and inconsistency. While pointing out inconsistencies is not totally without merit, in the long run it merely points out that one is inconsistent, NOT WHICH position is true.