Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Five Factions in Evangelicalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Esther View Post

    I battle to give a full amen to any of the above. If you are making the Bible the final authority then it must stand every test. I have bolded the part I take most issue with.

    The Bible says women are the weaker vessel.
    The Bible says women must not have authority over men in the church.

    These are simple clear instructions not needing interpretation. How do you interpret these verses? Here is a very good article I found by John Piper, not that it is needed as the Bible is easy to understand in this regard.

    ​​​​​​​https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...-weaker-vessel
    Ok, I'm going to address the "authority" one first, because it's such a primary "clobber text," as the saying goes, assuming it's referring to 1 Tim. 2:12.

    You say that the instruction is "clear" and "not needing interpretation."

    But "interpretation" is involved even in the process of translating it.


    ESV -- 1Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

    ISV -- 1Tim 2:12 Moreover, in the area of teaching, ​I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict toward a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.

    CEB -- 1Tim 2:12 I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener.

    NIV -- 1Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

    KJV -- 1Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


    We can discuss it further if you like. The point for now is that it is not so "clear" an free of need of "interpretation."


    Some consider 1 Cor. 14:34-35 to be related to that bit from 1 Tim. 2. Here is a fascinating, albeit technical and nerdy, article about that. I'm able to understand it, but the details about the Greek are beyond what I can *evaluate*.


    On Piper's message -- Everything about it is "interpretation," and much of it speculative. I find it frankly weird that he went so quickly to genitalia as the "root" of the "vessel" metaphor. That is not part of the basic meaning of the word, and few if any of the almost two-dozen occurrences in the NT even suggest that.

    It's certainly true that men are typically larger and stronger than women physically. In ancient times, it was normal for women to be financially and socially dependent on men. (Normal, but certainly not universal. Nympha and possibly Lydia were of sufficient means to be householders of homes large enough to host local churches, and Phoebe was a "prostatis," a position of social prominence and in some sense leadership.) In any case, it's not at all clear what that has to do with hierarchy of authority.

    I do agree with his opposition to the modern trend of trying to portray women as comparable to men in every way, including physical abilities. That's silly. It was silly when Billy-Jean King "won" that fake tennis match with Bobby Riggs, and it's silly now.

    Roger Olson expresses my views well:

    "I believe in absolute equality of men and women, boys and girls AND in real differences between the genders, differences that complement each other. And I know there are many people who embrace within themselves aspects of both genders. But that does not diminish the reality of sex-gender. In other words, I still refuse to reduce gender to social conditioning." -- From his article in response to the Five Factions article.

    Marg Mowczko always has interesting things to say. Here she has some stuff about 1 Pet. 3:1-7. (I have not read that particular batch of her stuff yet.)
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Esther

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      The Bible says the woman is the weaker vessel yes - and on balance women are not as strong as men. However, there are plenty of women who are stronger than most men, so it is only an on balance thing. But all that is a mere aside. The "weaker vessel" bit does not negate Peter's admonition to husbands that they should have the same attitude toward their wives that wives should have toward their husbands.




      ? What does Piper have to say about that?



      OK - on Piper's first point, he is, in your opinion, "adding to the weaker vessel verse and giving his own understanding where none is required." (or does your assessment of a comment change depending on who makes it?)

      As to Piper's second point - words fail me.
      Yes correct. Both you and Piper add when no further interpretation is required for this weaker vessel verse. I quoted Piper's article as a matter of choice and for those who go for in-depth analysis.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

        Some consider 1 Cor. 14:34-35 to be related to that bit from 1 Tim. 2. Here is a fascinating, albeit technical and nerdy, article about that. I'm able to understand it, but the details about the Greek are beyond what I can *evaluate*.
        1 Cor 14:34–35 is an interpolation, an insertion made by someone other than the author. The interpolation hypothesis is perhaps most persuasively articulated by Philip Payne.1 Payne argues, quite rightfully in my judgment, that a number of factors necessitate the conclusion that 1 Cor 14:34–35 is a non-Pauline sentiment with which Paul sharply disagreed.2 But interpolation is one of two possible explanations of this fact, the other being that Paul is quoting the position of the Corinthians from their letter in order to refute it.


        I do believe that last is the correct explanation - and for 1 Cor 11: 1-16 the same explanation is a certainty. The only point of contention with the explanation for either might be whether it was the Corinthians themselves who were making the claim, or interlopers.


        It's certainly true that men are typically larger and stronger than women physically. In ancient times, it was normal for women to be financially and socially dependent on men. (Normal, but certainly not universal. Nympha and possibly Lydia were of sufficient means to be householders of homes large enough to host local churches, and Phoebe was a "prostatis," a position of social prominence and in some sense leadership.) In any case, it's not at all clear what that has to do with hierarchy of authority.
        Most useful. It adds to the body of evidence that suggests women weren't QUITE as downtrodden in 1st century Judaea as many commentators like to think.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Esther View Post

          Yes correct. Both you and Piper add when no further interpretation is required for this weaker vessel verse. I quoted Piper's article as a matter of choice and for those who go for in-depth analysis.
          You thought you were citing Piper to refute my comment.

          These are simple clear instructions not needing interpretation. How do you interpret these verses? Here is a very good article I found by John Piper, not that it is needed as the Bible is easy to understand in this regard.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

            Ok, I'm going to address the "authority" one first, because it's such a primary "clobber text," as the saying goes, assuming it's referring to 1 Tim. 2:12.

            You say that the instruction is "clear" and "not needing interpretation."

            But "interpretation" is involved even in the process of translating it.


            ESV -- 1Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

            ISV -- 1Tim 2:12 Moreover, in the area of teaching, ​I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict toward a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.

            CEB -- 1Tim 2:12 I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener.

            NIV -- 1Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

            KJV -- 1Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


            We can discuss it further if you like. The point for now is that it is not so "clear" an free of need of "interpretation."
            Thanks.

            I see 1 Timothy 2:13 giving the reason why women should not have authority over men in the church.

            So here is the instruction in verse 12:

            12 I do not allow a woman to [c]teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet [in the congregation].

            Here is the reason why not. Nothing to do with the times they were living in or the culture or anything else. The reason is to do with original sin.

            13For Adam was formed first [by God from the earth], then Eve; 14 and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was led astray and [d]fell into sin.

            I withdraw the John Piper article link. I included it to add weight because I notice the trend to over analyse and finely mince when none is needed in this particular instance.





            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Esther View Post

              I see 1 Timothy 2:13 giving the reason why women should not have authority over men in the church.

              So here is the instruction in verse 12:

              12 I do not allow a woman to [c]teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet [in the congregation].
              I see that you have seen fit to add to the verse, albeit with the addition bracketed. By itself, that demolishes any possible claim that the verse needs no additions for correct interpretation. You have declared your own claim on that point invalid. There is only one reason for a woman to consider it appropriate to make that alteration, but the attempt relies on an inappropriate interpretation of "church" for such circumstances as are in view.
              It has already been pointed out that the injunction is part of a piece.
              Anyone who claims that verse 12 applies only within the church must cede that the injunction to dress modestly also applies only within the church.
              Paul does not claim that his injunction is God's requirement - it is therefore not a blanket requirement to be imposed throughout the church and for all time. The injunction is explicitly Paul's. Of course, it the passage didn't conflict with other, more generally applicable injunctions, then it would be simply a matter of reinforcing what has been stated elsewhere.

              I withdraw the John Piper article link. I included it to add weight because I notice the trend to over analyse and finely mince when none is needed in this particular instance.
              The person who engaged in over-analysing is the one who decided it was appropriate to alter the plain meaning of the text with an additional phrase.
              Last edited by tabibito; 04-15-2022, 11:40 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                I see that you have seen fit to add to the verse, albeit with the addition bracketed. By itself, that demolishes any possible claim that the verse needs no additions for correct interpretation. You have declared your own claim on that point invalid. There is only one reason for a woman to consider it appropriate to make that alteration, but the attempt relies on an inappropriate interpretation of "church" for such circumstances as are in view.
                It has already been pointed out that the injunction is part of a piece.
                Anyone who claims that verse 12 applies only within the church must cede that the injunction to dress modestly also applies only within the church.
                Paul does not claim that his injunction is God's requirement - it is therefore not a blanket requirement to be imposed throughout the church and for all time. The injunction is explicitly Paul's. Of course, it the passage didn't conflict with other, more generally applicable injunctions, then it would be simply a matter of reinforcing what has been stated elsewhere.



                The person who engaged in over-analysing is the one who decided it was appropriate to alter the plain meaning of the text with an additional phrase.
                My reply was to NR whose tone lacks your unnecessary sarcasm which has now become tedious.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                  But I am persuaded Scripture teaches full equality of men and women, with equal authority and responsibility in the home, and no distinction in permissible "roles" in the Church.
                  For the record, I never voted for Trump, either time. Yes, I agree with much of his political positions, but I think he is a loudmouthed scumbag. I wrote in a protest vote in 2016, and didn't even bother to vote in 2020. I knew my state was going for Biden either way, so my vote wouldn't count anyway.

                  But to the issue of men vs. women, there's one grammatical factor which I never hear brought up. Take for example the verse in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
                  The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
                  The Greek words used for husband and wife basically mean man and woman. The context in this passage and several others suggests that they are talking about married women, who have husbands, not necessarily single women. At least that's the way I understand it. Am I wrong on this?
                  When I Survey....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Faber View Post

                    But to the issue of men vs. women, there's one grammatical factor which I never hear brought up. Take for example the verse in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,

                    The Greek words used for husband and wife basically mean man and woman. The context in this passage and several others suggests that they are talking about married women, who have husbands, not necessarily single women. At least that's the way I understand it. Am I wrong on this?
                    The answer to the problem posed by 1 Cor 14:34-35 and some other passages lies in the grammatical conventions of Koine Greek that were used until after the fourth century. People in those times readily identified points and counter points, but the identifying marks are subtle. Those markers do not really survive translation (or as in this case, don't necessarily even make it into translation), and even when a reader today knows how to identify them, they can easily be missed.

                    Your point is almost supportable - the women referred to could almost be wives - the men could almost be husbands. But ... that is reading through the lens of modern social norms. The first century reader's women almost always had men, whether husbands, fathers, grandfathers, or brothers; in extremis uncles or male cousins.

                    The end of v34: "just as the law also says" - that doesn't come from Paul. He undoubtedly wrote it, but he was citing someone else. It is the first cue that Paul might not be laying down a rule at this point. Paul is extremely unlikely to make a call to law to underpin an argument.

                    v36 (in the Koine Greek) begins with "or." To preserve the intent of the passage, the minimum needed would be to keep "or" and render it as "OR" - that would at least draw attention to what is happening.

                    So:

                    34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
                    35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
                    36 OR, was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

                    Paul was responding to an argument originating in or introduced to the church, and that "OR" signals a "what the ...?!" (which is to say, it is a protest). Had he been speaking of a matter that did not arise from the church's teaching, verse 34 would have had something like a "you have heard that" as an introduction. Given the circumstances, such an introduction would have been wholly unnecessary.

                    A more detailed explanation is available from the Priscilla Papers if you're not averse to argument presented in an academic format.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 04-15-2022, 04:50 PM.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Esther View Post

                      Thanks.

                      I see 1 Timothy 2:13 giving the reason why women should not have authority over men in the church.

                      So here is the instruction in verse 12:

                      12 I do not allow a woman to [c]teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet [in the congregation].

                      Here is the reason why not. Nothing to do with the times they were living in or the culture or anything else. The reason is to do with original sin.

                      13For Adam was formed first [by God from the earth], then Eve; 14 and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was led astray and [d]fell into sin.
                      Forgive me if I'm a bit blunt. I'm not trying to be rude, just relatively concise.

                      -- Nothing in the passage mentions "in the church" or "in the congregation." Those are matters of interpretation. In that era, Christians, Jews, and even Greek and Roman pagans engaged in "prayer" in many settings, so it's not unlikely that the instructions to "men" and "women" early in the chapter applied anywhere they were engaging in prayer.

                      -- There is probably some reason for the shift from plural -- men, women -- to singular -- woman, man -- in vv. 11-12. It may indicate Paul's instructions within the household between husband and wife. Or it may allude to a particular woman and her behavior toward a particular man (most likely husband or family member).

                      -- As you may have noticed, there is considerable disagreement about whether "exercise authority over" is even the correct term. "Authenteo" is used only in that one place in Scripture. It is not Paul's usual term for "authority." Bartlett, in Men and Women in Christ, is the first person I've seen to suggest a reason *why* Paul chose that unusual word, as well as the also rarely used word "oikodespoteo" (5:14). It is known from both secular history as well as Acts 19 that Artemis worship was prevalent at Ephesus in the First Century. Bartlett cites evidence that the form of Artemis worship extant then and there included magic and astrology, and those words came up in some of the lore.

                      -- Other aspects of Artemis worship were the ideas that woman was created first, then man, and that woman was in the place of primacy.


                      So, to sum up, while "your side" tends to see the passage saying that women are never allowed to teach or have authority over men in the church, and that this is because all women are easily deceived like Eve. "My side" tends to see the passage correcting one or more particular women who had retained ideas from Artemis worship and were using them to go beyond marital equality to the point of being domineering and controlling toward their husbands.

                      I realize there may be more nuance and variability to each "side" than those two sentences convey.


                      I withdraw the John Piper article link. I included it to add weight because I notice the trend to over analyse and finely mince when none is needed in this particular instance.
                      But as you see, we don't agree about the need to analyze and dissect. "Rightly dividing" sometimes includes considerable "mincing." I realize it's tedious.

                      To me, it's "clear" that Junia the apostle would have had some kind of "leadership" and oversight role, and that Nympha was likely the shepherd of a house-church. To me, "your side" has to "analyze" and "mince" Rom. 16, Col. 4, and Acts 18, among others, to get around women teaching and having some kind of leadership over men.
                      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                      Beige Federalist.

                      Nationalist Christian.

                      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                      Justice for Matthew Perna!

                      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                        Forgive me if I'm a bit blunt. I'm not trying to be rude, just relatively concise.

                        -- Nothing in the passage mentions "in the church" or "in the congregation." Those are matters of interpretation. In that era, Christians, Jews, and even Greek and Roman pagans engaged in "prayer" in many settings, so it's not unlikely that the instructions to "men" and "women" early in the chapter applied anywhere they were engaging in prayer.

                        -- There is probably some reason for the shift from plural -- men, women -- to singular -- woman, man -- in vv. 11-12. It may indicate Paul's instructions within the household between husband and wife. Or it may allude to a particular woman and her behavior toward a particular man (most likely husband or family member).

                        -- As you may have noticed, there is considerable disagreement about whether "exercise authority over" is even the correct term. "Authenteo" is used only in that one place in Scripture. It is not Paul's usual term for "authority." Bartlett, in Men and Women in Christ, is the first person I've seen to suggest a reason *why* Paul chose that unusual word, as well as the also rarely used word "oikodespoteo" (5:14). It is known from both secular history as well as Acts 19 that Artemis worship was prevalent at Ephesus in the First Century. Bartlett cites evidence that the form of Artemis worship extant then and there included magic and astrology, and those words came up in some of the lore.

                        -- Other aspects of Artemis worship were the ideas that woman was created first, then man, and that woman was in the place of primacy.


                        So, to sum up, while "your side" tends to see the passage saying that women are never allowed to teach or have authority over men in the church, and that this is because all women are easily deceived like Eve. "My side" tends to see the passage correcting one or more particular women who had retained ideas from Artemis worship and were using them to go beyond marital equality to the point of being domineering and controlling toward their husbands.

                        I realize there may be more nuance and variability to each "side" than those two sentences convey.




                        But as you see, we don't agree about the need to analyze and dissect. "Rightly dividing" sometimes includes considerable "mincing." I realize it's tedious.

                        To me, it's "clear" that Junia the apostle would have had some kind of "leadership" and oversight role, and that Nympha was likely the shepherd of a house-church. To me, "your side" has to "analyze" and "mince" Rom. 16, Col. 4, and Acts 18, among others, to get around women teaching and having some kind of leadership over men.
                        Thank you I read everything you wrote and appreciate the time and input.

                        I also appreciate the in depth study of the Bible by others.

                        My over-riding question always is where do people find the time. Also my need to get going with what I've got and just read straight from the Amplified Bible which for me negates the need for massive in depth consulting of concordances etc. There is more than enough that is clear and simple to understand and stimulate by plain reading.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Esther View Post

                          Thank you I read everything you wrote and appreciate the time and input.

                          I also appreciate the in depth study of the Bible by others.

                          My over-riding question always is where do people find the time. Also my need to get going with what I've got and just read straight from the Amplified Bible which for me negates the need for massive in depth consulting of concordances etc. There is more than enough that is clear and simple to understand and stimulate by plain reading.
                          I'm not a huge fan of the Amplified Bible, especially as a stand-alone translation. It definitely does NOT substitute for consulting alternate translations and lexicons. Many of the "amplifications" are nothing more than the *opinions* of the translators. Those things should be placed in footnotes and designated as opinions or comments, not inserted as if they are part of the text. Besides that, the translators *neglect* to mention things that don't support their own beliefs, and in fact translate some things dubiously if not outright incorrectly. The verse we've been discussing in 1 Tim. 2 demonstrates all of these problems:

                          -- "I allow no woman" is a dubious way of rendering "I do not allow a woman," or perhaps more precisely, "I *am not allowing* a woman"

                          -- "have authority" is a common way of rendering the verb, but since it is hotly debated, a translation that bothers to add a lot of stuff should include at least a brief note about the controversy, acknowledging many scholars prefer a reading like "domineer" or "control."

                          -- "over men" is IMO simply a *wrong* translation of "over a man."

                          -- There was no need to add "keep silence" after "remain in quietness."

                          -- The bracketed "in religious assemblies" at the end of the verse is strictly the opinion of the translators.


                          The "where people find the time" issue can certainly be a problem, especially for people who have lives. I... don't.


                          Just for a bit of TMI, here is brief(?) background on my "gender transition," so to speak:

                          When I was first saved, ca. 1980, I started attending a C&MA campus fellowship. I don't recall any discussions one way or the other about women preaching. In 1984, I got "filled with the Spirit" and started attending a local Full Gospel church (which was also a Word-Faith church). They allowed women to teach and preach, as long as a male leader had given permission, and the "head pastor" could only be a male. I was fine with that at the time. Before long, it occurred to me that this seemed to be contrary to the "plain reading" of 1 Tim. 2:12 in my NASB. Then I also noticed that the NASB plain reading of 1 Tim. 2:12 seemed to be contrary to the "plain reading" of Acts 18:26. For the moment, I was willing to take my church's practice as a working compromise between those two texts, and not think much about it.

                          By the early '90s, I was having serious doubts about Word-Faith interpretation of Scripture, and about some of the major anecdotes of the "Father of the Faith Message." Then my church started actively pursuing "Toronto Blessing" experiences (sending people to Toronto in hopes of bringing back some of "the anointing," as if the Spirit couldn't find us and someone had to go there and grab Him and stuff Him in the trunk of their car). I left / was asked to leave that church in the mid '90s. Over the next few years, while I was sorting out my theology, I read some materials by Gordon Fee. He's a respected NT scholar and Pentecostal who had written stuff critical of Word-Faith. Completely by accident, I came across some of his writing on women in ministry, and that brought my mind back to the contradictions I'd observed a decade or more prior. So I realized I had to try to sort that out in addition to the Word-Faith stuff.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                            -- "I allow no woman" is a dubious way of rendering "I do not allow a woman," or perhaps more precisely, "I *am not allowing* a woman"
                            And that is before you get to the part where "woman" can be interpreted as "a" or "the" and whether "the" would be generic or a reference to a specific individual. The context does show "a woman" = generic "the woman" as the most probable by a wide margin, but without cross-correlations it can't be asserted to be so.

                            I attended a service where the Toronto blessing was being demonstrated once - left the place half way through and never returned.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 04-17-2022, 03:37 AM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                              I'm not a huge fan of the Amplified Bible, especially as a stand-alone translation. It definitely does NOT substitute for consulting alternate translations and lexicons. Many of the "amplifications" are nothing more than the *opinions* of the translators. Those things should be placed in footnotes and designated as opinions or comments, not inserted as if they are part of the text. Besides that, the translators *neglect* to mention things that don't support their own beliefs, and in fact translate some things dubiously if not outright incorrectly. The verse we've been discussing in 1 Tim. 2 demonstrates all of these problems:

                              -- "I allow no woman" is a dubious way of rendering "I do not allow a woman," or perhaps more precisely, "I *am not allowing* a woman"

                              -- "have authority" is a common way of rendering the verb, but since it is hotly debated, a translation that bothers to add a lot of stuff should include at least a brief note about the controversy, acknowledging many scholars prefer a reading like "domineer" or "control."

                              -- "over men" is IMO simply a *wrong* translation of "over a man."

                              -- There was no need to add "keep silence" after "remain in quietness."

                              -- The bracketed "in religious assemblies" at the end of the verse is strictly the opinion of the translators.
                              Ok how do you interpret the Eve part? Not trying to get clever btw. No matter the translation it is clear that the Eve part leads on from and is a valid reason for women not to have authority over men in the church? Yes I still see "in the church".


                              The "where people find the time" issue can certainly be a problem, especially for people who have lives. I... don't.
                              Ha ha I hope you are joking? Real life is a busy business!


                              Just for a bit of TMI, here is brief(?) background on my "gender transition," so to speak:

                              When I was first saved, ca. 1980, I started attending a C&MA campus fellowship. I don't recall any discussions one way or the other about women preaching. In 1984, I got "filled with the Spirit" and started attending a local Full Gospel church (which was also a Word-Faith church). They allowed women to teach and preach, as long as a male leader had given permission, and the "head pastor" could only be a male. I was fine with that at the time. Before long, it occurred to me that this seemed to be contrary to the "plain reading" of 1 Tim. 2:12 in my NASB. Then I also noticed that the NASB plain reading of 1 Tim. 2:12 seemed to be contrary to the "plain reading" of Acts 18:26. For the moment, I was willing to take my church's practice as a working compromise between those two texts, and not think much about it.

                              By the early '90s, I was having serious doubts about Word-Faith interpretation of Scripture, and about some of the major anecdotes of the "Father of the Faith Message." Then my church started actively pursuing "Toronto Blessing" experiences (sending people to Toronto in hopes of bringing back some of "the anointing," as if the Spirit couldn't find us and someone had to go there and grab Him and stuff Him in the trunk of their car). I left / was asked to leave that church in the mid '90s. Over the next few years, while I was sorting out my theology, I read some materials by Gordon Fee. He's a respected NT scholar and Pentecostal who had written stuff critical of Word-Faith. Completely by accident, I came across some of his writing on women in ministry, and that brought my mind back to the contradictions I'd observed a decade or more prior. So I realized I had to try to sort that out in addition to the Word-Faith stuff.
                              I do find the various journeys of Christians interesting.

                              When I first got born again, I read Derek Prince's book, Foundations for Righteous Living, thoroughly teaching about the 6 fundamentals of Christianity: Hebrews 6:1-2 :

                              Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

                              Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

                              This book and the foundational teachings of Christ has allowed me to explore WOF and other denominational teachings and I like to think that I am able to hold on to what is good.

                              The excesses of the Toronto blessing and Kansas city revivals etc are soul jarring.

                              The stringent "we have it right and only we do" crowd I find being part of the letter kills part of the but the Spirit gives life. As always the balance between the Word and the Spirit is a harmonious sweet spot we all I am sure want to find ourselves living in.




                              Last edited by Esther; 04-19-2022, 12:17 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                I attended a service where the Toronto blessing was being demonstrated once - left the place half way through and never returned.
                                From the time I started attending that church in 1984, in almost every service, we had a few people get "slain in the Spirit" or "fall under the power" when prayed for. I don't think I'd ever seen or even heard of that sort of thing, so it startled me at first, but never really bothered me.

                                A few years later, after we'd moved into a new building, we started getting occasional occurrences of "holy laughter," mainly during and after visits by certain itinerant evangelists. One of them, Roger Blair, had a singing ministry and also a "signs and wonders" ministry. Most of the "signs and wonders" were along the lines of people falling and being "stuck." One friend of mine fell and lay there sort of vibrating, for lack of a better term, for 45 minutes or more. His wife stayed with him while everyone else went home for lunch when the already-long service released. One of his visits was, as I recall, the initiating occasion for people getting "drunk in the Spirit." In those days, I sort of fancied a young lady from a neighboring town, and visited her church when they hosted an itinerant "signs and wonders" evangelist named, IIRC, Ken Green. His services were generally similar to Roger Blair's, but less (if any) singing, less laughing, and more falling, getting "stuck," and a bit of "pogo-sticking" (mostly by the pastor, a nice guy with the booming stereotypical Pentecostal pastor voice -- "Glow-ruh be ta Gawd!"). As I understand it, the fruit of his visit included a revival or renewal in the previously cynical and disinterested youth group, and the pastor's pre-teen son receiving an instant healing of a foot ailment.

                                I read John White's When the Spirit Comes with Power around the time it came out in 1988, and he gave a largely favorable assessment of similar and even stranger things taking place mostly in "Vineyard" churches at that time.

                                When the Toronto Blessing stuff became (in)famous in the mid '90s, my initial reaction was to wonder why it was "news," since at first it seemed like stuff we'd been experiencing for almost ten years. As more details emerged, I became concerned about the more bizarre behaviors (animal sounds and mannerisms, for instance), and the fact that leadership apparently welcomed them. And I did not at all approve of the anger and implied threats they directed against their critics.

                                As far as my own church was concerned, I was concerned that many had (presumably unconsciously) gotten to a point where they acted like an absence of "Spiritual" laughter and intoxication at a service was akin to God failing to show up. I believe it's normal if not normative for various of the "manifestations" of 1 Cor. 12-14 to be present in services. But things like "holy laughter" are neither exemplified nor forbidden in Scripture, so my attitude toward them is similar to the traditional C&MA stance on glossolalia -- "Seek not, forbid not." Having rather freshly concluded that the Word-Faith stuff my church taught was faulty, I was not prepared to tolerate them actively seeking exotic phenomena.

                                For better or worse, I have some "favorite" scholars, and like to get their views on things. So...

                                On p. 279 of Spirit Hermeneutics, Keener says, "... I affirm (against some critics) the value of the Toronto Blessing..."

                                OTOH, he also endorsed a book (A New Apostolic Reformation?) strongly critiquing "NAR," which is often closely linked with Toronto Blessing descendants and, e.g., "Jezebel" teachings.

                                In Gift and Giver -- The Holy Spirit for Today, Keener recounts, among other things, his own experiences with Spirit-initiated laughter. In Spirit Hermeneutics he notes this is a phenomenon -- especially in revivals -- long predating "Toronto."

                                Ben Witherington makes passing mention of the "Toronto Blessing" in his book Jesus the Seer. I am unable to determine the page number on Google Books. It is difficult to be certain, but from the context, it appears he may believe such things may be common to "prophetic" experiences from a variety of spiritual sources; in that case, they would be judged by the source (if known) and the fruit, not by the unusual appearance.

                                David Walters, The Anointing and You, p. 42, citing Christian History magazine, Issue 47, Vol. XIV, No. 3, article "The Natural Supernatural" where Gordon Fee is quoted:

                                Question from Interviewer: "What would Paul and the early church then think of the 'holy laughter' in some churches today?"

                                Answer from Fee: "That sort of thing was not common in the first century, and I'm cautious about speaking of phenomena I've not experienced or witnessed. But my guess is that the early church would see it as a work of the Spirit -- whether it's a human response to the Spirit's triggering, or the Spirit Himself who produces the laughter. Laughter is certainly something the Spirit could produce."

                                -----------------------------------------------------------

                                Fee, recounting anecdotes from his youth in Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God:

                                “There was ‘ow-ooo Ferris,’ a dear brother, who when he got ‘blessed’ yelled ‘ow-ooo’ while sort of dancing in place and out into the aisle. … And then there was the brother who stood up to prophesy some crazy thing, and started, typically, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ When his ‘prophecy’ was weighed and found ‘wanting,’ it was gently suggested that perhaps it was not the Lord who had spoken after all. He jumped to his feet again. ‘Thus saith the Lord!’ he shouted, ‘that was too me!’”
                                Such people "added spice" to services.
                                ------------------------------------------------

                                6/17/96 cover article of "Christianity Today," Gordon Fee opines that the modern church has largely "domesticated" the Holy Spirit, but the part of the article actually containing that quote is now paywalled.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                120 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X