Would you join this church

In chapter 6, I believe so.

 

If that's your position, then so be it.

But I see nothing contextually or linguistically to give me that impression.

 

At this point we part ways. I can respect your position, as I held to that at one point.

 

More power to you, but I don't practice it and being a part of a church that does would cause me to sin, and I don't feel it is wrong.

 

Why do we vote in church, anyway?

 

True, but in certain circumstances it does, i.e. the United Nations. I believe in Acts 6 a group out of the whole church community (whole company of the disciples) was chosen BY the apostles to make this decision, which would constitue a leadership decision of sorts, as there were men and women not privvy to make that decision.

 

Good question. I've heard of churches splitting over the color of carpet and paint.
I have yet to see a flock of sheep select their shepherd

 

I thought I was done with this, but I guess I'm a glutton for this sort of thing.

Let me use your HCSB that you like so much:

1. "In those days, as the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint by the Hellenistic Jews against the Hebraic Jews that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution."

A group of both women and men.

2. "Then the Twelve summoned the whole company of the disciples and said..." (v.2).

The Twelve summoned this group of women and men.

3. "Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can appoint to this duty" (v.3).

The Twelve refers to the whole group as "brothers," the common NT term for both women and men in the church (Rom 12:1).

4. "The proposal pleased the whole company" (v. 5).

The whole company of women and men. Are we to split our hermeneutics because we don't think women should vote in church affairs?

 

We're all gluttons for punishment at times...

I underlined, bolded and italicized where I feel your presuppositions are. Reading into "the number", and "whole company" they were "both men and women" is eisegesis. I do have "brothers" or "brethern" on my side

In additon, even if it were "a" group...you have maintained all along it was the whole group...the entire church. Now the burden of proof lies on you that "the number of disciples" is referring to both men and women.

Plus, if I recall...you have mentioned you like the HCSB quite well yourself

 

Yes, we are. :laugh:

Here's why I don't think it's eisegesis:

1. In v. 1 the number of disciples refers to a group of men and women.

2. The Twelve, separate from this group, turns to the groups and says, ""It would not be right for us to give up preaching about God to wait on tables..."

There's no break in the speech of the Twelve until v. 4.

3. It is common in the NT to refer to a body of believers of both men and women as "brothers" (Rom 12:1; Gal 6:1).

I'm simply reading out of the text what is already there.

It takes more effort to try and dismiss the obvious.

Now you must demonstrate that both the terms "brothers" and "the whole company" excluded the women.


In additon, even if it were "a" group...you have maintained all along it was the whole group...the entire church. Now the burden of proof lies on you that "the number of disciples" is referring to both men and women.[/QUOTE]

 

Ah...but it says only
1 In those days, as the number of the disciples (A) was multiplying, there arose a complaint by the Hellenistic Jews [a] against the Hebraic Jews [b] that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution.

You have inserted men and women into the text, as it does not say that. In addition, it states "their widows" were being overlooked. That is an odd statement if it were a woman saying that, IMO, as it seems the helinistic jews were defending their widows. This would imply that these were males speaking up.

To me the obvious is the fact 5000+ people didn't need to choose waiters for the widows. That lacks any kind of common sense or purpose, and would be wasting the time of the 5000+ people, particularly when there was much evangelism to be accomplished.

You can't prove a negative. It is my belief the burden of proof lies in equating "the number" with "men and women".

 

You find it an odd statement, and to me, it's normal.

Why say women was in the group when it's understood.

Keep in mind that not all women are "widows."

Besides, we read in Acts 5:14: "Believers were added to the Lord in increasing numbers—crowds of both men and women." This is the group that was multiplying.

The Twelve took it on themselves to "devote ourselves to prayer and to the preaching ministry" (v. 4).

Then we find the Twelve saying to the group choose seven men, Gk. andras, making it specific. Why? Because women were also in the group.

 

Probably because I'm odd...

The whole wording of "their widows" coming from a group of women really doesn't make sense. If they approached the apostles and stated "our widows are not being treated right", that could also be usurping the authority of their husbands as head of home since they would be speaking in their stead. If they were the widows stating that, it really doesn't make sense. It all doesn't sit well with me...

If time was the issue for the apostles...what takes less time, picking a group of men to make this decision, or gathering 5000+ people to vote on it? Who tallied this vote? In my ward where I live, it takes hours to tally that kind of number...and that is using electronic ballots. All this to pick who waits on widows?

The meaning of the group could very well be "brethern" in the sense both the Helinistic jews and Hebraic jews were brothers by blood. It doesn't necessarily connotate they were women.

 

We're all odd at times.

You'll make a great creative writer. I'm too simple. I like to read a text like it is. I really don't get that impression.

Again, I don't see a woman voting as acting in leadership position. Sorry!

As I said, "Not all women are widows," and in this case widows had to be taken care of not married women.

But there was a problem of neglect because of slight ethnic differences.

Time? We're not talking about a week or a month to select 7 men. This is something that can be done in a few hours.

Don't forget that a group of 4000 then 5000 were both fed in a few hours, respectively.

Voting is much easier.

I'm sure the Twelve had no problem with waiting.

How did they baptize 3000 in one day (Acts 2:41)?

Now you're adopting a meaning for "brothers" that doesn't fit the context at all.

Because of the use of "brothers" elsewhere in the NT, I see no reason to exclude women here.

 

The women in my church have voted that I should discontinue this debate :laugh:

This is where Joshua Rhodes' signature applies...

In Essentials: Unity.
In Non-Essentials: Liberty.
In All Things: Charity.​

 

Women are smart, too. :laugh:

At any rate, you took me by surprise on this view.

 

I tend to lean conservative. That's why I'm not a calvinist either

 

Too conservative on that one.

 

...or too liberal on your end?

At the end of the day the saying "opinions are like nostrils" tends to make sense.