Women Pastors

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know why I bother to respond to you at all. It is you who distort, twist, dance, mischaracterize and misrepresent what I have said, and, actually, just post outright untruth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Name a place I have done that. You say I ignore, attack, or distort. Did it ever cross your mind that everything you disagree with is not attacked or distorted. You are right that some stuff I simply ignore. It is not worth the time to respond to. BTW, What is rabid, legalistic fundamentalism? I don’t think you know what fundamentalism is. I am not attacking you – simply stating that you keep throwing the term around improperly. (Fundamentalists and fundamentalism has a very specific historical connotation.) You attack me without base. You have not shown anything wrong with my theology. You have not even addressed it. Why?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do answer people's questions;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then start with the one about why the gospel’s reports of Jesus words are true while Paul’s reports of God’s words are not true. Tell me what the standard is. Tell me why you believe that Scripture can be errant and inspired at the same time. Tell me how you know what is true and how you know what is not true. Then you can continue with what Rom 10:13-17 really means. Then you can continue by showing how Rom 2 supports your view of those who haven’t heard. Then you can move on to why 1 Tim 2 only applies to the first century church when Paul uses creation/fall support for his prohibition. That should keep you busy for a while and it doesn’t involve anything that requires a personal attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> they ignore them, or they attack my answers and me personally because that's what militant fundies do. They get caught in their legalistic, literalistic trap, and when they can't get out of it, they start making unfounded attacks to try and deflect attention form the fact that their interpretive methods are inconsistent and hypocritical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have made no unfounded attacks. I am not a fundy. I am a fundamentalist. I have no legalistic, literalistic trap. You haven’t shown any thing I have said to be inconsistent with Scripture. In fact, you haven’t even addressed what I have said. You are the one who is trying to deflect attention by not answering questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those questions I asked you are very simple and straightforward, and I very well know the context of the scripture passages that they are based on. And your answers prove that you don't follow your own hermeneutic, so, I think you should address your own fundamentalist hypocrisy before you assail the intelligence, honesty, or scriptural knowledge of anyone else. My position stands; what is blown out of the water is your credibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure that if you are so positive of this, you will be able to use Scripture to demonstrate it. I am willing to be shown that I am wrong. But you must use Scripture because I have no other authority. You make it sound so easy. Please address it. Like the above issues, addressing these issues from Scripture will require no personal attacks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Concerning your response to my question about musical instruments: Yes, we DO have a number of things that were not used then, things that were not forbidden. Infant baptism falls under this category; it is not forbidden in the New Testament. So, why don't you practice that, Larry, or allow it to be practiced? Strict adherence to your hermeneutic demands it. Of course, you have already demonstrated that you don't strictly adhere to your own hermeneutic--your inconsistency, among other things, is showing again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shows your misunderstanding of my hermeneutic.

When the Ethiopian eunuch wants to be baptized, he asks the question, “what prevents me?” Notice Philip’s answer: “If you believe you may be baptized.” No baby can qualify for that. That is why infant baptism is out of line with Scripture. Once again you fail to show any inconsistency. Baptism in Scripture is always for believers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And again your implication that I have not studied is patronizing and insulting; theology has been my overriding passion for more than twenty-five years. I have studied the issues extensively and intensively. All you can do when someone confronts your unyielding legalism is to insult their intelligence and knowledge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is so insulting to you, then why do you do it to others? You accuse me of lack of study, imply that I am ignorant and inconsistent. You don’t bother to demonstrate any of that. You just assert and expect that I will accept it. I admit there are a lot of fundamentalists who cannot defend their position. I am not one of them. I do not mean to be patronizing or insulting. My apologies to you. However, judging from the content of your posts, your constant refusal to address exegetical/theological issues, and your misunderstanding of your opponents positions and bases for their position, you give every evidence of someone who has not studied the issues. If you have, my apologies to you. Please try to demonstrate that by representing your opponents in a manner in which they would represent themselves and then make exegetical/theological arguments about the issues.

You attribute your beliefs to God through the Holy Spirit. I attribute mine to God through the Holy Spirit. One of us is wrong. What is the standard of judgment by which we make those decisions? I contend that it is Scripture. But our authority is still different. You show evidence that you believe you can decide which part of Scripture is true and which is not. I do not share that belief. I think Scripture must be interpreted contextually, grammatically, and theologically. That is why I believe what I do. If you want to discuss individual passages, start the discussion. As I have time, I will discuss any passage you want to.

 

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

Lord, have mercy!

I have already stated on this board that I think homosexuality is a sin; I am not in favor of same-sex unions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then, if you believe that gender roles are still in effect, why are you hung up on this issue?

 

This thread has turned into something other that the validity or not of women pastors. It has in a very circular route taken us to the core of what belief is. Before anyone can say with authority God means this or that they need to fully study and understand every thing The Word has to say on that subject. Before it is true it agrees with all of the scripture. If any of it is wrong then it's all tainted. I don't know what you call this point of view. If it makes me a rabid right field fundie something or other then so be it. If we can't start with a rock soilid foundation we are lost. So above all things I believe the Bible is true and correct inerrant and preserved. To do other wise would be to lean to my own understanding. We will never come to agreement on this thread if we can't start on some sort of common belief. If we can't agree that our reference (the Bible) is right then we have no frame within which to work. We can only foster confusion and God is not the author of confusion. I'll close with that. Brian