Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by gb93433, Apr 19, 2008.
What do you think about the blog for April 18, 2008 at http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/
how about, "it's too long" ?
Some good points made. SBC has always been too strict, leaving the congregation, mostly bible illiterate, well versed in what the Preacher tells them, and what their Sunday school quarterlies present.
Most believe they are of the gospel of the "kingdom is at hand", unable to fathom what Acts 9 tells them along with Galatians 2:9; Also Acts 13:1-4 along with Ephesians 3:1-2, "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward", and on.
I believe that to put severe restrictions on the role of women in the church is to simply replicate a culture (not a faith) that existed 2,000 years ago. If anything Jesus did things to empower women not reduce them to second class Christians. In fact, he did this in many ways for many not just women. On a more practical note, restricting women in the way that many conservatives want to do is like a general deciding to go into the critical battle without half of his troops. We're in spiritual warfare that's eternally more important than a war we started in Iraq. We need to muster ALL of Christ's troops in this battle.
Who teaches women are second class citizens?
From what I've seen in our church, any restrictions placed on women are biblical.
Check out the 21st blog. Watch the second video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4
Guess who it is. (HINT) He has posted here in the past.
donnA--reading solely in English, I would have to agree with you.
However, the more I learn of the words used in Greek, and their usage outside of scripture, I have come to some radical conclusions:
Women are not forbidden from teaching and preaching or what we hold as "authority positions". They ARE forbidden to wrest authority from the men and dominate them. THAT is what was common in the pagan temples in NT times. Christian women are not to imitate pagan practice. It would seem, in recognizing their equality and freedom (versus their place in Jewish life) some women were going too far and imitating the pagans.
Christian women are not to remain totally silent in the church. Rather, just like the men they ARE to be allowed to learn. During this, they need to learn with a submissive (calm and quiet, not ranting and raving) spirit JUST LIKE THE MEN DO. They are NOT to make that distinctive keening wail common among middle eastern women during church services.
In English translations, it does appear women were not deacons, pastors, etc. That is not so clear in the Greek. Example: the word translated deacon regarding Stephen is usually translated servant regarding Phoebe. It takes some real gnat straining to get there.
Usually when I discuss this with someone, the next point made is that Adam is first in creation, then Eve, as Paul pointed out. The assumption is that makes males pre-eminent. 1 Timothy 2 is usually cited. What isn't taken into account is that Paul here is most probably refuting the pagan belief that Eve existed before Adam. (After all, the animals came before Adam but Paul does not teach that makes them pre-eminent over Adam.)
Having said all that radically liberal stuff, I remain convinced that it is in the best interest of children to have a full time mom. (Wow--I can hear the flaming arrows from the right and left already! LOL)
So can women hold the office of pastor or deacon? I believe the answer is yes but----a whole lot more often than we baptists usually want to admit, and a whole lot less often than the women's libbers want to admit.
I also believe rank and position conferred by the curse at the fall are removed by redemption.
Thats like saying we can not understand scripture without knowing greek, if we interpet scripture without greek we are interpeting wrong.
That sounds like people who opposed scripture being translated into other languages, we should all learn greek or not read the bible at all.
Where as the bible is certainly understandable just reading it by itself, in our own language.
Knowing greek is not necessary to studying and understanding the bible. Helpful, but not necessary.
And the bible says women are nto to teach men.
You can't change that.
I'm talking about the article that was referenced. Did you read it?
Listen to the videos at
Then consider the effectiveness of what you wrote.
After you have completed your studies in Greek then see if you can repeat that same sentence.
It amazes me how many students each semester tell me that they will not ever use what I teach.
From the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D.
The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman
1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.
2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.
3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.
4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.
5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.
6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.
7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.
8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.
9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.
10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.
Not true, and as one who knows the Greek as well - I disagree entirely.
Women ARE forbidded from teaching and preaching. Paul stated regarding the church "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." Not that she is to be no speaking but non-teaching or non-preaching in the church. It is something you can not get around. It is blatant and before you, and then Paul goes on to say 'why' he does not permit a woman to do so, under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, what you are presuming is that it is not ok for women to 'wrest' authority, but what you have done leave that same argument opened ended for the converse to be true. Thus men are permitted to 'wrest' authority from one another but not women. You also seem to be forgetting that it was God who set forth the order of their "Jewish life" and the authority there in. Yes, the Jews allowed pagan views to corrupt God's view but women were never second class citizens as some presume but were treated more like queens. They didn't have to work, their husbands were the ones to be held accountable for issues, they were to be taken care of comepletely, et...
I agree, women are not to be non-speaking, but they are not permitted to teach or to excersize authority over a man.
Umm... wrong dear brother. Phoebe is not considered a deacon because scripture excludes her specifically by virture of the qualifications of a deacon. Specifically in that the deacon is to be the 'husband of one wife'. Unless you are contending that she was married to another woman she is disqualifed via the Holy Spirit inspiring the written word. It takes real straining at the gnat to come state she was a deaconess. I take that back... you have to ignore scripture in order to make such a claim. - IMO
Please note this is not what scripture is stating but is you presumption based on no biblical fact. I bolded the above to show you this, and therefore it is only assumption and conjecture.
Scripturally the answer is No. You have do a lot of dancing and ignoring specific scriptures to come to such a conclusion.
Again, a false assumption. I betting you ascibing this to the verse that says "there is neither male nor female" since this is the most often cited proof text but never exegeted from the text. This is refering to salvation not authority nor position. Eve was subject to Adam BEFORE the curse. She was Adam's 'helper' not Adam's equal. She was created for Adam.
It is not speaking of her being his slave but his help-meet or one who comes along side TO help.
A woman is cover her head to show she is under authority but a man is not to:
Doesn't sound like rank and position are removed now does it Were is the equality in such a statement?
Another that establishes this same thing is also in the same chapter:
As God in the beginning created it, so it remains.
I will say that men and women are equal in that they can both fulfill God's will, but there is a headship and authority that can not over stepped unless one is willing to cut out other scriptures entirely.
One does NOT need to know Hebrew or Greek to understand the scriptures, just as a Pastor does not need a decree in order to pastor a church. Both are helpful but neither is required. And this is coming from one who reads both Hebrew and Greek :thumbs:
If we say that one needs to understand the original languages in order to know scripture, then do like the Catholic Church did and remove the bibles from the commoners hands for it is useless to them. To say such was pure ignorance on their part and anyone who would claim such. Yes, it helps but it is NOT necessary.
Years ago I followed a pastor who apparently spoke a lot of ignorance because he did not know the languages and the historical background of scripture. I ended up dealing with a lot of poor theology as a result of what he taught. The people questioned what I told them for quite awhile. At the same time they were somewhat confused. Eventually as they asked me questions they lost respect for their former pastor. That kind of ignorance caused me problems and created a distrust for what him. Unfortunately he is a DOM nearby and the people do not support him very well.
I am curious who you had for Hebrew and Greek.
For many many years the Bible was removed from those who spoke Greek and Hebrew as well. When the Bible was written only about 2% of the population could even read.
Certainly a lot can be understood but it is different to say that one could completely understand the nuances of a language. Language resides with a culture. It is much more than just translation of words.
If you have ever heard anyone from another country speak you would know what I mean. Sure they can read English but they do not always understand the full meaning of certain words because they do not fully understand the American culture.
When I watch students coming from other countries who can hardly afford a plane ticket sacrifice so much to learn and grow, I cannot help but think of all the excuses I have heard from those who are born here.
Yes, is that surprizing to you??
And since I can read them I can even write in them to. :laugh: I am no linguistic scholar but I am not a novice either. Then again, I don't know any of those scholars who are so assured of their ability they need no 'helps' either. Maybe I'm just not understanding your meaning of 'any helps'.
Your example from the above is not a matter of 'if he could have read the originals he would not have poor theology' but in reality his poor theology is the result of "poor study".
Again I state:
Allan--I am an extremely conservative stay at home lady who would have agreed with you entirely for the past 40 years. My changed view is very recent.
ONLY the conviction that some passages have been/are being mistranslated could ever change my view.
For example--in English it does clearly read that Paul forbids a woman in authority over a man. Two problems in the Greek: first off, the verb tense does not say "absolutely and for all time" but more "I am currently not allowing". Secondly, the word used for authority is not the common word for authority, and carries with it sexual connotations, suggesting women were not to use their, shall we say, feminine wiles upon the men in the congregation.
I realize you may be the expert in the Biblical languages here, but respectfully submit that they are not your primary languages. Therefore, what you know about them is what you have been taught about them. There is the possibility you have been mistaught. There is the possibility I have been mistaught.
My own study on this issue has been fairly wide. I prefer to see what Baptist leaders say the text says, what non Baptist Christians say, and what non Christian's say. I prefer to compare this with what linguists with no doctrinal axe to grind say. Some agree with you--but I find a larger group, especially those with no axe, disagree with you.
So, much as I want the scriptures to agree with you, and I do, I have to look at the whole of scripture to untangle the mess of maybe's. When I do that, I see Jesus affirming Mary's right to attend the seminary of the day. I see Him affirming the unclean woman who touched Him. I see Him according equal respect to the woman caught in adultery. I see Him appoint the woman at the well as His evangelist. I see Him send women from the tomb to teach the men.
Which suggest to me at least the possibility we have taken our texts out of context and built doctrines out of our preferences rather than out of "thus sayeth the Lord."
This leaves me content to leave the issue with the individual and the local church. That is, if a woman believes she is called to pastor and a local church believes that is within scripture, I am not gonna fuss with them.
If individuals believe they should vote against calling a woman pastor, and a local church votes that as part of it's bylaws only males can be pastor, I am not gonna fuss with them either.
At least not as long as all of us are free to attend whichever church we believe obeys scripture best.
Allan--I forgot something I wanted to ask you--
I assume from your reply to my previous post you believe only married men can pastor or be deacons? Only those with children? I ask because the church I am member of is about to ordain a young single man. Do you believe this is scripturally forbidden?
And you do realize that the same word that describes woman as man's helper is the same one used of God? Are you saying Adam outranks God?
I'm afraid your knowledge of Greek is faulty. The Greek word for have authority here is authenteo, and that's all it means, to have authority, not to "wrest authority" as you say. As for the word's usage outside of the NT, the classical usage is if anything even stronger. Here is the Liddell-Scott classical definition: "to have full power over." As for other koine usages, BAGD (2nd ed.) gives no other meaning, so whatever your source for "wrest authority" for authenteo, it is wrong.
Let's see if my Greek bonafides are good enough for you. I have MA in Biblical studies, have taught Greek at two Japanese Bible schools, and have translated 90% the NT from Greek into Japanesse.
Your analysis here is dead wrong. The Greek for autheneo is in the present active indicative. Now no tense actually says "absolutely for all time," as you put it, but you can't say it more strongly in Greek than the present active indicative. If it were to mean something conditional, as you say, then it would be in the subjunctive, probably with an ean or an ei (both meaning "if") in front of it.
Secondly, I have no idea where you got the sexual overtones for authenteo. None of the many lexicons I have say anything like that: BAGD, Analytical, Thayer's, Louw-Nida, Liddell-Scott, etc. Someone must have dreamed that one up! I'd do more research on this, but the Perseus research website seems to be down right now, and we have prayer meeting tonight.
Take care, and be more careful with the Greek, please! :type:
P. S. A quick correcton to the above. (My excuse is that I was in a hurry to get to prayer meeting.) Authenteo is a present active infinitive, and epitrepo is a present active indicative. But the analysis still stands. This was a strong way for Paul to say what he did, not a conditional way, which would be done with a subjunctive. :type: