Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;1378960]I think the confusion is in the terminology. I do not mean they can't lead in any capacity. leading people to Christ is for every saint to do. If anyone see's where a brother or a sister is in error we all should feel to lead or expound the way that is right. Paul would be talking out of both sides of his mouth if in one verse he spoke against women usurping authority over the men and was in other places advocating women in authority over men.

I didn't ever say my wife wasn't called. If I did I certainly didn't mean that my wife had no call of God on her life, but was speaking toward specific positions in church government.

The ministries that God gave to the church were gift ministries and I believe they where to all, women included. The thing though is those gift ministries are to be regulated. The government roles of deacons and bishops where not for women.

You might think I am getting a little out of context here. But, where I am going is that these ministries are not positions. Just because a wife may have a pastoral ministry doesn't mean that she is permitted to exercise that as a bishop over a church. That doesn't mean she can't teach in any capacity though. The ministry calling on her life must not go beyond Biblical boundaries set in the scripture, thus I say regulated.

Man has probably been defining the role of the wife, but that is the curse placed on women from the fall.

I read that as the wife was a "help" and the word meet means acceptable or sufficient. Help is the noun and the word meet describes the noun. Just like when John commands those to bring fruit meet for repentance.

Equal in worth yes, but the role was never the same.


I don't think that is reserved to spiritual matters.

I agree, in someways. Of course as the scripture teaches that she will be a help, but I don't think that just because a man is called to be a pastor that his wife is now a pastor. She may in no way be gifted as a teacher/leader neither called to do that. This is another topic, but we so put expectations on the bishops wife that should never be imposed on her.


I disagree with your belief of the family. We are to be leaders in our homes, and that is not restricted to spiritual matters. Although submission should never be forced on someone. The commands for wives to submit was not given to men, but given to women. Submission is never forced, but must be freewill given. If my wife ever decides she will not comply with a decision that I feel is mine to make, then I will still love her and treat her the way God wants me to.

I should not be so concerned with what scriptures command my wife, but should be concerned with what scriptures command me.

This is what I want.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

And he gave some, plumbers, and carpenters, electricians, masons and landscapers .

The "roles" of the five-fold ministry gifts to the church are not positions to be acquired, they are what you DO.

As was mentioned in an earlier post, elders and bishops in Paul's personal letter implies that they are one and the same. The term "elder" means older which makes sense since Timothy was not older.
Paul exhorted him to prove his calling (iow, be older in spiritual maturity than his years). A bishop is merely an overseer. It's not a CEO type position. What the statement Paul made implies strongly is that an overseer of a fellowship should be older; an elder.
Our culture promotes Youth and the younger culture into positions of church leadership, but that promotion is off-base if one is to consider the Acts as a present-day template.
The idea that today's local church is biblically directed to be a "one man show" (ie; singular pastor-led) is not supported by N.T. theology. There are exceptions. For example: an apostle-like ministry that founds a new work at home or in foreign lands. I see little to no N.T. justification for a high priest/pastor in that local church once the work is established and mature saints grounded in the word,
A teacher that is a pastor (Prax's point) is one that shepherds within and without. He (pastor) is one that feeds, leads and protects. The "role" implies not only spiritual protection but physical protection as well. He could well be a facilitator and in the 1st Century would be one that could find that "safe" venue in which to preach, teach, evangelize, etc.

(some landscapers? lol)

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Good way of putting it.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Prax wasn't making the point that teachers and pastors are the same. He was making the point, that although some read it that way it is probably not the same ministry. Yes, pastors are to teach.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Good Samaritan

Sabby gave a good description of the rendering of Eph. 4 and passages concerning elders deacons and bishops.

Let us talk about the wife's role. Your highlight of "in everything" I do not believe speaks of things outside the spiritual realm for these two reasons.
First Paul is speaking of headship in the body, (the church). In chapter 6 Paul speaks to the children and uses the word obey. But in chapter five he uses the word submit. when speaking to the wife, and that in the context of the church. "as unto Christ".

Eph 5:23 because the husband is head of the wife, as also the Christ is head of the assembly, and he is saviour of the body,
Eph 5:24 but even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also are the wives to their own husbands in everything.

Do you not see that the wife is subject to the husband as the church is subject to Christ? And that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church? One need to study how Christ conducted his ministry on earth and gave himself as savior to see how the husband is to be the head.

Two, while you quote the submission of the wife after the fall, under the new covenant all are equal, in the eyes of God. Jesus even references, to "in the beginning it was not so" when answering the question of divorcement. Which takes us back to before the fall in the husband and wife relationship.

That being said look again at the words help meet. The Hebrew meaning of help is "Aid" and the word meet, in the Hebrew means "counter part". Not sure where you are getting your definitions but I can see how man has continued to subjugate the wife by those definitions.

The cross takes us back to before the fall. As Paul states, "in Christ there is neither male or female, Jew or Gentile".

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

presbytery- It can be presumed just as Timothy and Titus where to appoint elders, they them selves where appointed to the presbytery themselves. IMO, elder was more in regard to Spiritual maturity than having to be a certain age. A Bishop must have a wife and family. I believe that was one way for him to be proven. If a man can lead his on family well then it is likely that he is mature enough to see after some of the spiritual matters of the church.

elders- I have no college or seminary, but it would seem to me that the Greek for elder and presbytery are very closely related.

I don't see a Bishop and a elder the same. A bishop will certainly be an elder, but a elder may not be a bishop. Just as a pastor will be a teacher, but every teacher will not be a pastor. I'm an advocate of a singular bishop per assembly with multiple elders. Does anyone have any references to a church web site that has plural elder/bishop leadership, I would be interested in seeing some churches who have gone that direction.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I do and I agree. Christ sacrificially loved and served his bride. I am not refuting that.

It was from the fall that the wife was cursed to be subject to her husband. If you are making the point that we no longer (under the new covenant) bound to this, then that would also mean the man doesn't have a responsibility to be a physical provider for his family. I think the roles were the same in creation but the curse caused them to be grievous.

If procreation was meant to happen before the fall then there must have been labour.

I think it is possible that Adam still had to care for the garden which involve some small amount of labor prior to the fall. IMO. I think that the punishment was that the earth no longer was going to easily give the increase that it once did.

You are correct, I guess I have read the KJV English the way it sounded to me. I am still not sure that the translators meant for the word "meet" that way. You are correct though, I looked it up in the Strong's. I am enjoying the study.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

ESV says:
I am not sure that the word "meet" was added by the translators to describe the noun help. Because the two English words "help meet" were translated from the one Hebrew word "ezer" (this is coming out of a Strong's, all I know). Translating Hebrew and Greek is not anything I am very educated at, but from the English that is why understood help meet the way I do.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I also was thinking about this. Jesus died for us while we where yet sinners. Just as the Church is to submit to Christ, wives are to submit to their husbands. I don't think we are to submit to Jesus only in spiritual matters, but in all matters. It is our choice though. Jesus died for us while we where in disobedience. I don't think that the husbands role to sacrificially love his wife is conditional either. In other words, I am not trying to place all of the focus on submission. In church and in home government we don't have the authority to dictate someone else's life. A bishop should teach people and seek to protect them, but he is only permitted to do so in love and never by constraint.

Children are different. When the Bible says to obey I believe we are permitted to use constraint when necessary.

PS I am blessed by God with a good wife and kids and all this comes easy most of the times.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

And see that the wife reverence (phobeo?) the husband?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

It is a fear that brings respect. Like making sure you hand a knife to someone handle first. You are not terrified of the knife, you just respect that the blade is sharp and handle it with respect. The Greek word finds its way into the English as phobia. So, some believe that the apostle was telling wives to be terrified of their husbands, and the church to be terrified of Christ. Which isn't the true definition of the Greek.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

:thumbsup

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Good Samaritan,

You're exactly right about the "presbytery" being very nearly synonymous with the term "elder". In the our local church, the "presbytery" are older men.

:grampa :gmarocks :gpagripes

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

This must also be taken in the context of "as unto Christ" in the same way the man is to be subject to Christ the wife is to be to her husband. But this by no means give us the right to subjugate the wife, in the manner we do so in the way many of us think.

I believe this goes to the context of the discussion. Of a singular minister over a congregation. And why Paul describes the church as a body, with Christ as head, and God giving the body plural gifts. These gifts can be likened to hands feet, fingers etc, that work dependent to the body. But the bottom line is Christ is head not a man.

Something else we seem to miss, Paul said God gave gifts, some apostles, some pastors. Again not a singular pastor. Again I realize many wont agree with this, but I don't believe Paul is speaking of the church at large when he writes this but the local assembly. Meaning that within the local assembly God gave gifts of pastor/teachers. After all he is not writing to the church at large but the local assembly at Ephesus.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

:thumbsup

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I just noticed this statement made by Samaritan

You might think I am getting a little out of context here. But, where I am going is that these ministries are not positions. Just because a wife may have a pastoral ministry doesn't mean that she is permitted to exercise that as a bishop over a church. That doesn't mean she can't teach in any capacity though. The ministry calling on her life must not go beyond Biblical boundaries set in the scripture, thus I say regulated.

Again I know many that don't agree with me on this. But I do not believe Paul's instructions concerning the wife precludes her from being a Bishop. To use the word pastor because that is the term we understand the most. I have known several wives that have been pastors that I believe were within the boundaries of Scripture.

One it comes down to the way we read Paul's instructions to wives/women in general. I believe Paul gave those instructions primarily for the general church setting, not as a overall set in stone law that a women could not speak in the assembly. In that setting and in most settings today even, there is no reason for a women to teach or hold a pastoral position. Husbands and wives should be in line with each other on doctrines etc, if not there is a problem in the marriage.

That being said there are exceptions where the women might need to step up so to speak into leadership. As long as she is in right position with her husband God honors and actually places a women in this position.
In more detail, these women were in harmony with there husbands and shared the leadership. Much like in the groups I now fellowship where the husband and wife are co pastors.
I guess you would have to experience this for yourself to understand how it truly works, but work it does and far greater than anything else I have experienced to date.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Co-pastors?

You went charismatic, "word-faith", "The River(TM)"????

What do you mean by "subjugate"?

Does the word "patriarchy" automatically get the bile flowing?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

What is charismatic?

SUBJUGATE, v.t. [L. Sub and jugo, to yoke. See Yoke.] To subdue and bring under the yoke of power or dominion; to conquer by force and compel to submit to the government or absolute control of another.

"Patriarchy was a long time ago, when God called Abraham. No way can you Aline that with to the theocracy rule of God.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Theocracy - rule by God. God is our FATHER, and we are his HOUSEHOLD. Therefore, God's system is a Patriarchy. Patriarchy means "rule by father", from Pater/Patria (father) and archos (rule, government).

Do you believe the head of the woman is the man? That a man is to rule (govern) his household?

Or do such ideas automatically make you think of tyranny and bondage?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I think the roles are reversing. A lot of men allow their wives to dictate their homes because of fear. Men should love their wives as Christ loved the church, but the emphasis on the bride is important as well. Man and woman will both answer for their sins, but their is a cultural shift and men are rolling over belly up and submitting to their female counterpart and I think many times it is out of fear. This culture of political correctness is making it hard to be a man.

Men are made to be responsible for their family (and they are),but If they try to exercise authority in their home they receive opposition from every direction that they are a chauvinist dictator. I know of men right now who are allowing their wives to destroy their witness, while they are passive in every situation to keep from troubling the waters. I am not posting this to stir up bad feelings between men and women, but instead encourage men to be godly leaders in their home.

Always do the right thing no matter what the opposition. We can't force our spouses to do anything, but we can make sure that the choices that we make are right. Even if that means sleeping on the couch.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

It is not complicated, Esaias. Yes I feel we have taken this passage as a right to be chauvinist dictators.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Christ is our example, savior of the body. Does Christ act as a dictator over you? Then we are not to be dictators over our wives. Of course I realize that we don't see that in ourselves, as we think we are just being obedient to this passage of scripture.

Yes I realize that the husband and wife relationship is complicated, depending on the culture one comes from. In some cultures the wife is little more than a slave, a keeper to the home and children and to take care of her husbands needs. But I don't believe that was ever God's intent.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I don't grasp what you are saying here, you think because men and women are working more together as equals that means they are rolling over on their bellies and submitting to their wives?

Just what authority do you mean when you say exercise authority in the home? And in what way do you see wives destroying a husbands witness? That is a very general statement, is the wife running around committing adultery? Or do you mean she is cutting her hair, maybe wearing pants, etc?
If you believe your authority is in the realm of dictating to your wife your convictions you are dead wrong.
Of course these are just my feelings on the subject. I can say this from 38 years experience being married to the same women. We fought like cats and dogs the first 20 some years of our marriage. Because I was of the opinion I was the head and my word should be law. Thank God that my wife did not lay down and play dead, and many wive do. Because in most of our arguments my wife was right and I was wrong. But like myself most men won't accept this because they are of the opinion that they are the head and must exercise their authority in all things.
My wife and I rarely argue anymore, because I changed my thinking and we have become a unit and work together.

I can only say, to this, you wife should be your greatest confidant, and sounding board. When she becomes this it will save a lot of sleeping on the couch.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Is the church morally obligated to obey Christ even if it doesn't understand some things? Is the Lord morally obligated to teach the church, to lead the church, to protect the church not only from external evil but from internal wrongs as well?

Is the church expected to SUBMIT to the Lord in only certain things? Or all things?

Was the man created for the woman? Were they created for each other? Or was the woman created for the man?

Is the woman to have authority over the man? Or is she supposed to be in subjection to the man?

What does the bible say?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Titus 2
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I am not implying at all not to work together as equals. I am saying that in a lot of relationships that in order to keep peace the wife must be made happy. There is a saying, "if moma ain't happy ain't nobody happy". This is unchristian. Does Jesus teach us to fuss and fight until we get what we want, or does He teach to prefer another. We are taught in scripture to be selfless. I am sorry, but I don't hear that cliche, "if daddy ain't happy ain't nobody happy". Why is this? I believe it has become culturally normal for women to be able to manipulate their husband to their demands. Which is contrary to the commands of scripture.

I am not against reasoning together and compromising, but in many cases I have seen it appears to be men are the ones who are being the ones pushed around. IMO

I know couples right now who are in financial ruin because the husband refuses to say no. I am not saying that sometimes it doesn't go both ways, but the majority of the time (for me) it has been wives that have the issue. I have recently seen a man demean an innocent person in order to satisfy an out of control wife.

I don't think you truly know me. I think your are getting the mentality that I am some staunch old time Pentecostal hammering on outward standards (not me at all). I am seeing men who are cowardly allowing their wives to push them to do things that they know are wrong.

Again, I think you are presuming something about me that is a false assumption. My wife's convictions are her's and her's alone. I am not even talking about convictions. My wife probably is more concerned about outward standards than me.

Cudo's on the 38 years, that is awesome. I have never thought that my words should be law, but I have felt that whether or not my wife and I agreed, it was my responsibiltiy to make decisions in the best interests of my family. (my intentions anyway)

This may have been the case prior to the 50's and 60's, but I believe this isn't the case with the majority of marriages today. I am not advocating abuse in any form BTW. Husbands should love their wives and love is not cruel and abusive.

I don't know what you fought about in your home, but if you were making a lot of mistakes in you home does that mean that you relenquish your responsiblity to lead your family? of course not. I am aware that I am sometimes wrong, but by know means am I predominantly wrong.

I personally believe that men and women are wired different. Women are more emotional and men are more logical (supposedly, but not always the case). I have seen many women escalate a bad situation, where most men seek to disarm the situation. Again, I am referring to most cases in my experience. I wouldn't expect a wife to blindly follow anyone, but they should seek to be a godly wife (and visa versa).

Me and my wife rarely argue. We disagree often, but there is a difference. When two people disagree they should seek a resolution (together). If there can be no resolution found then you should just do what is right. In my home I have the final decision, but that is not and should not be until I have sought to understand my wife's position. I have also found that if someone trusts that you love them and seek what is best for them, then submission is something they desire to do. It is not forced, but desired.

I agree, and btw In 12 years of marriage (to only one woman) I have never had to spend the first night on the couch. We have had disagreements and even fights, but at the end of the day we have been able to embrace one another because I loved her and she loved me. There is something we have both learned early to do and that is to say, "I am sorry".

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

You are right, the relationships you describe above are neither Christian nor balanced. Yet neither do I think it has become culturally normal for women to manipulate their husband. To be truthful I have seen more unbalanced marriages in the church than out.

I am not going to address each point as before. After reading through the post and back to others, I feel that for the most part you and I are speaking mostly the same thing, only using different words, and from a different perspective.

Just to give you a bit more perspective, because you gave me more in your case. My wife and I in our younger years fought, because I felt that as husband my word should be law, even if I was not entirely right, because "bless God I am the husband and the head of the home". It has been my experience, most abusive relationships stem from a domineering husband/man with a short fuse, that when his mate questions him he becomes abusive to keep his mate in her place as he sees it.
I can only say thank God, I was never one to become physical or I would have been one of those that physically abused his wife during the power play in the early part of our marriage.
In the last 20 years my wife and I rarely argue even, we have become a unified unit.
Isaias ask me if I get the hebie gebies when I hear the term patriarch, and I have to laugh, because I have become a true patriarch to my children. I have four adult children and six grandchildren. And while we may not see eye to eye on every little thing, when push comes to shove, they turn to my wife and I for advice and as a sounding board for everything from business decisions to the spiritual. This from two son in laws, one that owns a several hundred thousand a year construction business, and the other that is very high in the HP corporation. Both of which are also in Godly ministry.

There are no power struggles in my children's lives because of the example my wife and I have been able to set in the last 20 years. That does not even take into account the hundreds of young people that have become adults that my wife and I ministered to across this state in our ministering years.

I say this not to lift myself up, that is not my intent. But only to show that I am not just a novice that is quoting scripture to prove a point. Rather to show that my understanding of scripture is based on not just bible knowledge but experiences in life.
Too many times people quote scripture from a narrow minded point of view, never taking into account the culture scripture was written in. There is that word culture again, that many don't like. But the fact is we must first understand the culture of that day and place many of the things we want to force into doctrine into today's culture, into that culture, then apply the principles if any into our culture.
Example, it is far more important that a women be in proper submission to her husband today than to wear the veil that was the sign of submission in that day and time.
I bet that sounds like a contradiction in light of the discussion we have been having about the place of the wife. LOL

As I said earlier after reading this you and I are mostly in agreement just seems we have assumed things about each other based on our way of wording things.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Oh I am going to get the guns pointed at me for this. Not everything we perceive to be a commandment of God is such! Whether you believe it or not, you are doing just what the religious leaders of Christ day had done. Taking any perceived phrase that seems to be a commandment to be a commandment. God does not and never has place anything on his children without reason that cannot be understood.
The church is morally obligated to keep those things that are morally right period. Paul list those things that are morally wrong in two places in the NT, those things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (the works of the flesh) Jesus said to love God and love your neighbor as your self, and in doing this you fulfill ALL the law.
Yet now we want to add to those basic principles and the commandment of Christ instructions Paul gave to individual churches that can be summed up and understood in their culture but not ours, and make them also a supposed commandment of God.

The church is to submit to those things that are a direct commandment of God, not advice to a particular church or churches that was not for all time.

You miss the point, in these questions, it should not be was the women created for the man, rather Why was the women created for the man?

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

What is a help meet? And what else does the bible say?

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Again I ask you in what way is Christ the head of the church? In that same way are the husbands over the wife.

Yep barefoot and pregnant, keep that little lady subdued. Yep we love that word obedient don't we, gives us all the ammunition to keep our wives under our thumb so to speak. But it goes against the reason God made women for the man, a Help Meet.

I'm not going to assume, that you mean this the way it is coming across to me. I did that with Good Samaritan and I was wrong. But there is a fine line between subordinate and subjection, but there is a difference. And it seems you want to make the wife subordinate not just submitted.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

What I see is, once again, a different hermeneutic. We approach scripture two very different ways. You say I am in effect taking a scribal, Pharisaic approach to scripture. I say you are taking a modernist, liberal approach to scripture.

"Man shall live by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

I find no rational basis for rejecting scripture, as "just for them, not for us". I do not agree with this radical, liberal, unhistorical view of the Word of God.

Paul said women are to be taught to be keepers at home. YOU disagree with that..Fine. But your argument then is not with me, but Paul, and therefore God.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I guess that Paul really meant for wives to get a job, submit to a male boss who tells them what to do, put the children in day care so they are raised by some other person, and make sure they wear shoes? :heeheehee

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

This would of been way better if this information had its own thread.

:)

Remember we are only to sidetrack threads with posts about bacon. :bacon

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I know even before I make this statement, I will get the guns pointed at me again. I think I am getting used to it now.

Your argument seems to be that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God it every word written by "men of God". Why then do you think that in the book of Acts that the church council only laid upon the Gentile converts these three things?
Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Yet now you want to add more, why did not the apostles foresee these necessary things and add them to the requirements then?
Yes I think you are adding unnecessary doctrines for today in reading Paul's words as God given law and all time doctrine.
Do you still subscribe to the teaching that a man cannot grow facial hair? After all that was a doctrine place on man during the 50's and 69's by God fearing men, it must be God's law as it was preached by men of God.
This is the same thing Paul was doing addressing an issue for that day and time.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

GD, do you believe that Acts 15:20 is outdated and therefore not applicable to us today?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

So gentile Christians are free to not honour their parents, and can bear false witness?

After all, you are saying the Acts 15 council only laid three (I thought it was four?) things on gentile believers as binding and obligatory?

Ever wonder where those apostles and elders got those "three things" from?

Was Jesus wrong when he said man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? Or was he just flustering the debbil with divine hyperbole? Did YOU get flustered, too?

Seriously, what was Jesus saying?

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Are we now to hear that Paul maybe wasn't... INSPIRED? Maybe not an apostle? Just giving his own opinions?

GD, how does one determine what is applicable vs not applicable? How can we know which parts of God's Word are passe and irrelevant now?

I mean, are graven images a big deal in our culture? Is the second commandment just for those ignorant neolithics back in the day (and maybe those poor ignorant savages in the deep jungle)?

Seriously, how do you determine these things?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

You answer that, do we have idol worshiping in our day? Do we eat animals that have been strangled without draining the blood? Abstain from fornication. Well yes we do have that today. So there fore that would apply would it not. Maybe Isaias can see the cultural difference in this. The point of Acts 15 is that They dealt with those things that were pertinent to the issues of that day in relationship to the words of Christ to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself. In so doing you fulfill all the law and prophets".

What part of that statement do we not understand, What more can you add to that or take away. How do you reconcile Paul's teaching on the veil, and women in the church against not one reference to such in all of the OT Law, nor Christ teaching, if he was not speaking to cultural admonitions such as those preachers that taught it was wrong to grow facial hair in the 50's and 60's?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Correct. The chain of command or hierarchy is God/Jesus- Man- Wife- Children.
Anyone find that to be wrong? If so how and why?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

GD, in Acts 15:20 the items listed concern pagan practices. So, why did the apostles after their meeting on Gentiles, focus on religious practices of these Gentiles?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Not sure how you are getting religious practices out of what the apostles focused on in the epistles.

If what you are saying, that God gave the apostles new commandments outside of the commandments Christ gave, above and beyond the commandments God handed down to Moses, without rhyme or reason, than I would say you make God a liar.

God does not change. Every commandment under the law had a reason, that made sense. Which is why even today we still do not reject Mosaic law out right, although we are no longer under obligation to keep the law as such. Yet even in the face of the numerous laws of the OT we find nothing addressing certain things that you say are now commandments of God because they were spoken by the apostles.

What I am saying is that these things we are discussing that man wants to make a doctrine for time and eternity, do not have a rhyme or reason in today's culture, but they did in that time.
Much like not many years ago when preachers preached against facial hair on men because it identified with a faction of society that the church should not want to identify with. And by the way those brethren were right to preach that. But not today, because our culture has changed and it is no longer a reproach to wear a beard or mustache.
It was a shame for a women to run around town without a covering, (veil) or shave her head. It is no longer a shame in today's society. It was a reproach for a women to be vocal in the local gatherings in that day and time, but it is not so much today. I say not so much today because there is always the element of a women's place within the family structure, but not total silence, nor to be completely dominated by the husband.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

As a husband to a wife I feel that my wife is my responsibility to lead not dominate. If we seek God's direction about who we become one with and fulfill are God given role then we will never have a problem with power struggles in the home. The man is the leader, period. We have a responsibility as husbands to be good leaders, though. Man follows Christ and the wife follows husband, essentially the wife follows Christ if she follows a godly husband.

All is conditional. Wives should not have to follow ungodliness, nor men.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

I'm sorry GD, I didn't mention anything concerning epistles, I believe you and I are discussing the prohibitions listed in Acts 15:20? Can you explain how these items ( those listed in Acts 15:20 ) were just some sort of cultural abstinence? :)