Pretty much. im not making any claim at scripture though. this is the latent male chauvinist in me talking.
dont know why, cant articulate it in any meaningful way but I have a problem with women on the church board.
there is that thing about a deacon being the husband of one wife thingie though....
LOL!! Well, at least you admit it's your preference. Phoebe was a deaconess.
That husband of one wife thing has been run into the ground with disallowing women into things. I have never seen it that way at all. It is talking about polygamy IMO.
LOL!! Well, at least you admit it's your preference. Phoebe was a deaconess.
That husband of one wife thing has been run into the ground with disallowing women into things. I have never seen it that way at all. It is talking about polygamy IMO.
yea yea. i sticking with my preference. (like that means anything as i am not in a position to make such a decision.)
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I saw it, I am just messin' with ya! And, truth be told, the day the pastor nominates somebody else to fill the board position that I now hold is the day that I will wholeheartedly voice my vote for that poor soul, er, I mean, that good person, to take my place!
I saw it, I am just messin' with ya! And, truth be told, the day the pastor nominates somebody else to fill the board position that I now hold is the day that I will wholeheartedly voice my vote for that poor soul, er, I mean, that good person, to take my place!
LOL! sounds like a familiar refrain!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Well, maybe you consider the OPINION of a commentator to be more authoritative than the meaning of the original Hebrew (or Greek, if NT) word used in the scriptures, but I don't. My post is very relevant, just inconvenient to your position, as your position cannot be supported by scripture (only commentary).
Since your reading comprehension skills are obviously lacking (since your response does not even remotely address what I said), let's try it again:
You're referring to passages that I never referred to and, thus, your post is irrelevant. Besides, I merely quoted from three different Bible commentaries concerning the passage where it said that God appointed judges. So, much to your chagrin no doubt, it isn't my scholarship (the combining of philosophy and theology) that is lacking but that of the theologians whose commentaries I quoted.
There is nothing in what I posted that even remotely suggests I "consider the OPINION of a commentator to be more authoritative than the meaning of the original Hebrew (or Greek, if NT) word used in the scriptures." Again, you referred to passages that I never referred to and anything you might have to say about those passages has no bearing whatsoever on the passage I referred to.
There are gender distinctions in the natural (in the flesh) but being IN CHRIST is a different matter. There is true equality even between slave and master. Yet in the natural, a slave is still a slave and a master is still a master. And a slave, even if a Christian, is to obey their master as unto Christ.Eph 6:5 Are the gifts of the Spirit including the gifts of the ministry given to members of the body or just to the male members of the body.
Chan, I'm saying there are no gender distinctions within the body of Christ. He has filled us all with his Spirit. We are equals in all things in the Lord. Whereas in the flesh, there are distinctions, and there isn't an equality in marriage.
Phil 1:16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
So, the fact that God specifically created male and female just goes away because we are "in Christ"? I guess the fact that we are all individual humans means nothing. I guess the passage about how the effeminate Christian will not inherit the kingdom of God means nothing (since there is neither male nor female in Christ, there is no such thing as effeminate). The UPC needs to stop preaching from the passage about how women are not to wear that which pertains to a man, since there is no male or female "in Christ." If there are no men or women "in Christ" then Paul's statement that he did not allow women to speak or to usurp authority means nothing - since you insist there is no male or female in Christ. The fact that the qualifications for bishops and deacons include being the husband of one wife means nothing - since according to you there is no male or female in Christ.
Yes, folks, we're just going to cast aside all gender distinctions in the Church - because Mizpeh says there is no male or female in the Church. Ladies (not that you exist anymore now that you're in Christ), you can go ahead and wear men's clothes and act like men all you want. Men (not that you exist anymore now that you're in Christ), feel free to wear dresses and go get your facials and manicures and pedicures at the beauty spa. Mizpeh has decreed that there is no male or female in Christ and insists that this means all gender distinctions just go away for us, since we are no longer in the flesh but are now "in Christ."
Oh no a whole troop of wives???
Linear Mode
