Featured Historic Riverside Church recommends first woman as senior minister

But Scripture tells us that ALL of it is inspired of God. He didn't give us the word, no matter who said what, for us to disobey it. If that were the intent, there was no reason to put it in there.

I go back to what I said earlier. God is not a God of confusion. He is a God of ORDER. He did not inspire the words, have them included in Scripture, and then expect for us to say "oh that's just Paul's opinion and not God's truth". That authors confusion and is inconsistent with God's character. And itopens the door for folks to say that was John's opinion or that was whomever's opinion so why should I believe it as the truth?

He doesn't modify his thinking on women overseeing men in the church. For that to be the case, you would have to undo Godly submission as well as the structure of the family that illustrates the principle of Godly submission and order. I say again, SCRPTURE says that this structure is God's way of producing Godly offspring. And if this has changed, there was no purpose to the Cross.

Paul didn't have to condemn slavery. The Exodus shows what God thinks of slavery. Why, after that exhaustive display of freeing people from enslavement would Paul need to speak to it?

Do you believe ALL Scripture is inspired of God?

 

This isn't politics. Being liberal or conservative is irrelevant. This is an issue of standing firmly on the word of God or opening the door to undo the word of God as the Christian standard of truth. The latter is a dangerous thing.

 

There is only one reason he would say, "this me, not God," and that is he never otherwise departs from God's inspiration. The only reason he bothers saying, "this is God, not me" is to differentiate between his opinion and God's sovereign inspiration. It is ignorant to think he ever records anything else that is "just him" when he doesn't bother to say that he is. You are attempting to destroy God's word with useless and needless speculation.

 

It's not troublesome to those who believe. Since you cannot tell me where Paul told us not to believe him, I'd say you are the one having trouble.

 

$600,000 to pastor a church in NYC.......600,000! Wow. Wonder what they want you to tithe? Does she also get a limo driver?

 

BTW, read the mission statement of the church. It can't be called a true New Testament church. More like a club. I spent about 20 minutes, myself.

 

From 70 to 150 in attendance in eleven years, if I am correct in my reading, is hardly "fill up a church" in my humble opinion. I have done that in a few churches in a lot less years, churches that were not in the middle of town...

 

Bro Curtis, what precisely do you mean by "those who believe"?

 

Those who believe there isn't one thing in the Bible to doubt.

 

I makes me ill to have his confessed children hold it up as a good example.

 

In the particular phrase in question, in verse 10, he does say "not I, but the Lord." You're not going to make a point of Paul's differentiating whether the words are his or the Lord's, and then bypass your own thesis in where he said it IS the Lord by saying, "In that passage, a few verses later, he says....."

 

What is Progressive Christianity?

Can someone explain to me what "Progressive Christianity" is - exactly? What is it progressing toward? Is it developmental? Are there steps or stages? Who leads this and from what source are the guidelines?

 

It is theological liberalism. It is a reliance on experience over scripture. It is about a worldly agenda wrapped up in Jesus.

 

How about false doctrine with a pseudo Christian façade? This is more man-made religion from the Cainites. See Jude 1-25.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Item 2: "There are many roads, not just one"
Item 3: "Sinners are equal to the saved"
Item 5: "The Bible is more a set of guidelines than actual rules"

Without moral absolutes, there are no moral absolutes. Consider carefully.