|
Post by prespilot68 on Nov 17, 2008 23:02:13 GMT -5
Hey guys I need some help. I have a friend who is discussing the roles of women in ministry. I wanted to know if anyone has any good thoughts or input as to whether women in roles of leadership (leaders, pastors etc) is biblical. I have read all the usual verses (1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians). However, many opponents of these verses claim these are culturally related verses. I personally feel these verses are not culturally for reasons of my own.
Therefore I would really like to get some input, or any good material or papers that someone might have regarding this issue.
Thanks Preston
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 17, 2008 23:20:03 GMT -5
The Bible was actually being counter-cultural when it said women should not be leaders or pastors in the Church. Women were leaders of pagan temples in the Roman empire. So the Christian Church was actually being counter-cultural with their teaching. It was totally acceptable in the Roman empire and the pagan culture for women to be spiritual leaders. The Church was at an antithesis with their culture. I remember reading that in a David Bercot book.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 18, 2008 4:10:16 GMT -5
Just a thought, but if we were having Acts style meetings in our homes, with true 1 Corinthians 14 style sharing, it may not be such an issue, but since we tend to view the Church as an institution with hierarchical gentile style leadership (when Jesus is the leader of the church) then maybe this wouldn't be such an issue. Just thinkin'...
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Nov 18, 2008 11:03:14 GMT -5
The Bible was actually being counter-cultural when it said women should not be leaders or pastors in the Church. Women were leaders of pagan temples in the Roman empire. So the Christian Church was actually being counter-cultural with their teaching. It was totally acceptable in the Roman empire and the pagan culture for women to be spiritual leaders. The Church was at an antithesis with their culture. I remember reading that in a David Bercot book. Thanks Jesse. This morning I was reading 1 Timothy again and I saw something I had not noticed before. 1Ti 2:12 But I (Paul)permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. (my emphasis) I realized that Paul is speaking here in the personal tense and therefore did not allow women to teach nor have dominion over man within his ministry. I think this verse is pretty straight forward, but again any additional information I can get will be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 18, 2008 11:05:08 GMT -5
First of all, the protestant concept of church is somewhat skewed by its own history, so you really have to begin by defining what church is. We tend to take a mystical approach whereas the Early Church believe that the Kingdom was an actual, tangible called out assembly. From the very beginning a hierarchy existed that had nothing to do with "gentile style leadership". Jesus established the church, appointed the 12, the 70 and others. In Acts, the 11 named a 12th and the hierarchy remained in tact. After the falling of the Spirit, the 12 appointed Deacons and others to help oversee the Church. As time went on, the 12 named others as Bishops and Pastors and established the guidelines and qualifications for those who could hold such positions within the Body. Generally the laity would recommend a man to become a minister of the gospel and the Bishops would affirm their decision by ordination. Priests and Deacons were ordained and for a short period of time, Deaconesses were ordained but did not receive the Holy Orders. When heresies began to rise up from some self appointed clergy, Apostolic Succession became a way in which one could establish their Orthodoxy. This galvanized the hierarchy of patriarchs and a pope (as the first among equals). In 1054 the pope claimed infallibility and the patriarchs broke away from the Roman church and became what is now known as the Orthodox Church. By the time the Reformation came about, the Reformers and the Roman Catholics were completely separated from the Orthodox, many of whom were slaughtered during the crusades. In the 30yr war, the Calvinists, Lutherans and Roman Catholics spent most of their energy killing each other, including women, children and infants. By the time the war was over, few of them knew what they were fighting about. During the time since the failed Reformation, we have inherited the views of the Calvinists, Lutherans, Ana-Baptist, Armenians (primarily Wesleyan) as they sought to correct the Roman Catholic doctrines they viewed as flawed. The Roman Catholics feared early on that a monarchy would result from Priests and Bishops having children and therefore instituted celibacy laws for priests. The Lutherans abandoned the celibacy laws and Apostolic Succession all together, as they were no longer in fellowship with the Roman Catholics. The Calvinists followed suit, as did the Ana-Baptist and subsequent groups. At this point, the Protestant groups had to decide on a new criteria for choosing priests and clergy. Eventually, some groups decided that the deaconate made no distinctions of gender and allowed women to serve the Eucharist. This paved the way for females that the priesthood is also open to them. As this logic is followed, without distinguishing between genders and roles, homosexuality cannot be condemned either. This is where many denominations find themselves today. The Early Church was clear on the priesthood, the role of women and men and the Orthodox remain pretty solid in this area as well.
In the first century, females were not permitted to interact with male parishioners at all inside the assembly. In the second century female deacons were found to be invaluable as a buffer between male priests and female parishioners. During the fourth century, a deaconess could greet other female worshipers at the doors of the church in order to prevent a male deacon from being perceived as behaving inappropriately in the presence of the opposite sex. In every case, even as the years progressed, the deaconess ministered to females. A deaconess was expected to keep other women in the assembly in line and would have taken great offense to any woman seeking an office reserved for men. Women did not receive the Holy Orders and could not administer the sacraments to men. For a period, baptisms involved being completely naked and deaconesses would baptize females who were not baptized as infants. As adult baptisms decreased in frequency, the need for the deaconess also wavered. There was some controversy as to whether or not a deaconess could take communion to women who were sick and unable to attend, and in some cases it was determined that she could do so as she was in no way being placed between a man and God (such as serving to nuns). Many groups considered even the administration of pre-sanctified gifts to other women to be an abuse of the office and ceased to recognize the office of deaconess altogether on account of this. The Apostolic Constitution says, "A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency". The reason for this rule was based not only on Paul's epistles, but also on the Fall itself, being that the first woman came between God and man and caused man to stumble. The Orthodox have been faithful in upholding the basic principles of the deaconate for nearly two thousand years. Church Fathers universally condemned the move of some gnostic communities towards allowing females to function as priests by administering the sacraments to men.
Female pastors are just the symptom of greater ills within the Church, ignorance being one of the primary diseases. We abandoned the model of the Early Church well over 1,000 years ago, to our own detriment. Just as Jesus visited us in the incarnation and was disgusted at what was being done in His Father's name, so I imagine He is disgusted today with all the factions and schisms that claim His name. We spend a great deal of time talking about what we are saved from, but what are we saved to? I for one am tired of preaching a model I cannot presently demonstrate and have every intention of not starting something new, but recovering apostolic/authentic Christianity. When people understand what that is, the Calvinist/Armenian/Baptist/KJVO/Women Preacher arguments will disappear.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 18, 2008 11:45:41 GMT -5
"Offices" are not formal "offices" as our Anglican translation would reflect, and all other translations off the top of my head have what in common? They all believed in hierarchical leadership.
Elders are *mature* brothers in the Lord who are recognized as having the qualities that a godly maturity would encompass - as expressed in the "qualifications" portions of the epistles.
Their authority is not that gentile style of authority that most modern churches espouse. This can all be backed up by scripture if we look at the original language vs teachings or history of the church, but also a progression to hierarchical leadership can be seen in the writings of the early church, which copied pagan/gentile and/or Levitical principles of governing, rather than the hands-off leadership by example and decision by consensus that God would have in His church.
"Offices" should be read and understood as "functions" and not formalized positions, and usually a cursory view of a Lord's Day meeting should not even reveal who is who, unless there is a problem to be taken care of - then the elders will become apparent.
The big question regarding this issue, and this remains for each individual assembly, should be, "Are women permitted to participate verbally in our Lord's Day meetings" (as in 1Cor14 - each one brings).
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 18, 2008 12:02:58 GMT -5
Ooh - Apostolic Succession! That has been replaced with denominational structures and their version of ordination and 4 years of (any) college plus seminary, then you have your pedigree, you've been groomed for "the ministry" and you can land a good job with a church! I know there are sincere persons etc but that's the generally how it works.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 18, 2008 14:04:46 GMT -5
"Office" and "Position" are used interchangeably in the KJV/NKJV. The Greek word episkope carries the meaning of an overseer, officer or caretaker.
1Ti 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise deacons [must be] reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being [found] blameless. 11 Likewise, [their] wives [must be] reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
You can't read scripture in context without knowing the teachings and history of the Church. Without proper historical context, you just plug in your own context, like Martin Luther did, and the Bible becomes totally subjective.
The Levitical Priesthood was instituted by God, the very God that joined Himself to humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, and does not resemble pagan government(s) by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless of what we may have been taught, Christianity has never been a democracy. "Hands-off leadership by example and decision by consensus" was not instituted by God. The "hands off" model has more to do with Isaac Newton and a couple other guys that divorced the faith from an actual Body as a response to the previous ages of bloodshed. The people didn't get to vote on the message of the gospel or the commandments of God. Just because the PCUSA votes to allow homosexuals into it's membership and to allow females to be pastors, that doesn't make those things any less abominable.
From Pentecost, the Early Church, throughout the Byzantium Empire until today, there have always been recognized positions within the Church. Paul recognized and contended for such positions. Peter, James and John held such positions. The disciples of the original disciples all recognized ordinations along with diversities of gifts, ministries and responsibilities.
1Cr 12:4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.
1Cr 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 [Are] all apostles? [Are] all prophets? [Are] all teachers? [Are] all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
You're right. Presently, anyone can get an audience by claiming to be sent from God to teach the masses. Most folks look for qualifiers that they believe should separate the genuine from the fakes. Apostolic Succession didn't keep wicked and ignorant men from becoming priests and neither have denominational offices or seminary educations. At the same time, promoting uneducated, self-appointed prophets that "feel lead to the ministry" isn't working wonders either. I firmly believe we have to look to scripture and the Early Church model to recover a proper understanding of the way we are to function as the Body of Christ. We can't do that without thoroughly studying the Early Church and bringing context back to scripture.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Nov 18, 2008 22:01:45 GMT -5
Joe
Thanks for the response. I really appreciate the depth you went to answer me. A really great and concise history lesson!
God Bless You! Preston
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 3:09:08 GMT -5
Vine's Expository Dictionary, under the word "hierateuo" (or "office"), says this: In 1Ti 3:1, the word 'office,' in the phrase 'the office of a bishop,' has nothing to represent it in the original;"
Under episkopos we find this: 'The term "elder" indicates the mature spiritual experience and understanding of those so described; the term "bishop," or "overseer," indicates the character of the work undertaken.'
In other words, a person of spiritual maturity who performs the described functions as necessary, which I personally find to be quite different than "holding an office", and I think it plays out quite differently in the local church depending on how it is viewed.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 3:16:37 GMT -5
"You can't read scripture in context without knowing the teachings and history of the Church. Without proper historical context, you just plug in your own context, like Martin Luther did, and the Bible becomes totally subjective."
Although I sympathize with you, as I found my self saying that very thing many times in the past, I think have to disagree. I have realized, to my horror, that I was in effect saying, "But you need the bible PLUS...". But I have had to correct myself, in that we do not need the bible PLUS. Any PLUS needs to be sifted through the word, and then discarded if it does not match up. The best early church to look to is right in the pages of scripture, though of course we can learn from those who have gone before. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." We have not only the bible but the Holy Spirit also, I really think we don't need to look to past traditions to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 3:22:45 GMT -5
The Levitical Priesthood was instituted *and abolished* by God. The hierarchical structure of church government imposed on the body of Christ by well meaning but unbiblical leadership is a mix of levitical and pagan structures, this is what I was trying to communicate, not that God's old covenant systems resemble pagan governments. But who made the decisions? Were they made at "council meetings", or by "elder boards"? Seems to me that in scripture, it actually was consensus, it was the whole church, not a democracy where whatever you vote for is OK, that's not what I'm saying. Consensus is not done through a vote, it through the body working things out, reasoning from the scriptures, dying to themselves, and aiming for the best, all guided by those who stand out in their maturity. There is not one modern denomination, especially of the Presbyterian/Reformed bent, that practices consensus style problem solving. The PCUSA, PCA, CRC, OPC, CREC, whoever, they have nothing to do with what I said and am saying. Trying to say, anyway. Who is voting on the gospel or the commandments? I don't know about that, consensus is a way of doing something, if you do something wrong with it it is not because of consensus (which there was not in the case of the PCUSA, nope, no consensus, and a bunch of people got booted out) but because of wicked people.
By the way, on the actual subject of the original post, the book Crossed Fingers by Gary North is a good look at how this kind of thing happens, at least in the reformed and presbyterian world.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 3:25:43 GMT -5
And you thought (hoped?) I was done!
Positions: I would say yes and no - meaning yes there are "positions", but the formalizing of them in some sort of institutional manner always leads to major problems, because these people are "overseers" to guide the church through servanthood and example, they are part of the church, they are brothers in the Lord and not Fathers, and certainly not "overlords". My feeling is that the church has one head and that is the Lord Jesus Christ, and "office bearers" that try to be interim heads, or co-heads pretty much just foul things up. *** "The disciples of the original disciples" could get things as wrong as anybody, I mean, the gnostics and the judaizers got it all fouled up and they were right there with the first NT church. Error can creep in or it can just explode on the scene. *** I'm not arguing against different giftings, and certainly there are overlaps of giftings, I think that is different than what we're talking about here. *** Myself, I love the fact that God champions "unschooled, ordinary men" (or even "unlearned and ignorant men") as his messengers! *** (I don't know about you all, but this is great fun, I can't wait to see what's on here later today!)
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 19, 2008 9:19:28 GMT -5
Jesus on Sola Scriptura - Jhn 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
Also, note that Jesus referred to the OT as scripture (the Septuagint) and didn't have a NT. The OT was a “shadow of that which was to come”. It provides a pattern by which we are to understand and interpret the NT.
Jhn 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
2Pe 1:19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit.
Scripture and prophecy have never been meant for private interpretation. It is not scripture alone, it is scripture within the context of the Church that is of great value. Until Luther was estranged from the Church, no one would have ever conceived of Sola Scriptura as a valid approach to the Bible.
You have to remember, Scripture itself was given to us by the Church. The versions that we have today were determined by councils. For instance, when the KJVO guys stand up and say that they have the only true translation, they usually don’t understand that they have a condensed version of the 1611 KJV (which of course is actually a collection fragments not a complete book translated into English) who’s OT was based on a Hebrew translation that came hundreds of years after Jesus ascended into Heaven. The Church decided which writings to preserve and which to expel. I personally use an English translation of the Septuagint and a modified NKJV translation of the NT. I opt for these because Jesus quotes from the Greek OT not a latter Hebrew translation. If it were not for the writings of the Fathers, the scribes of the Church and the oversight of the Bishops, we would not have a Bible of any version today. God worked through His Church to preserve the Scriptures, which testify of Him. Sola Scriptura really doesn’t make any sense as scripture did not preserve itself, nor does it testify of itself.
Paul understood that he needed the blessing of the Apostles even though he himself was an Apostle of a different sort. This was his purpose for going to them in the first place.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
Remember when the contention arose among the Church as to whether or not the Gentiles had to follow the ceremonial laws? Paul, Barnabas and Peter testified, the people gave their opinion, but everyone got quiet when James spoke and made the decision.
Act 15:13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men [and] brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.' 18 "Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, [from] sexual immorality, [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, [namely], Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this [letter] by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. :24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "[You must] be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no [such] commandment-- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Orthodox Church still holds to decision by consensus (which flies in the face of Sola Scriptura), in principle if not always in practice. Individual congregations are considered autonomous, yet they have Priests and Bishops which represent their congregations in synods which connect the individual congregations. To ensure that the individual congregations do not engage in heresy, a congregation found to be outside of the Orthodox faith (generally as defined by the Nicene Creed) will be called before the synod. If the congregation refuses to repent they can be put out of fellowship. It is rare that a congregation would be put out of fellowship, but a Priest who abuses his office or lords himself over the congregation can be removed at the request of the congregation. The Bishops, Priests and other clergy cannot overrule the decisions of the Body, nor can they unilaterally make decisions that affect the entire Church. This was at the heart of the schism of 1054 when the pope claimed infallibility. The pope believed he could make decisions that overruled the opinions of the four other patriarchs, the priests and the laity. I think you have a Roman Catholic view of ecclesiastical structure in mind, which is obviously outside the Early Church model. The answer to abuses found in the Roman Catholic Church is not the abandonment of the ecclesiastical structure. Martin Luther wanted to reform it but failed. The Orthodox have upheld it, but with some abuses and later additions (after the sixth century) to their own detriment. We can agree that the RCC model, Reformed model and subsequent Protestant models have failed where the Early Church succeeded and thrived. The fact that we are here discussing these things is a testimony that the Early Church got it right. By recovering the principals established by the work of the Apostles, we can recover Apostolic/Authentic Christianity. That, in my mind, is the goal. It isn’t about going to heaven when you die, it is about establishing the Kingdom of God as citizens of Heaven here and now.
Actually, the UPNA did vote by consensus in 1906 to ordain females as deacons with the same function as male deacons. In 1930 they voted to allow them to become elders, in 1964 (after the merger) the PCUSA voted to ignore gender entirely and allow women to be ordained into all offices. Just as when the consensus among Israel was to worship the golden calf, they got it wrong. The homosexual agenda keeps being brought forth by consensus. The work of their current "task force" reveals the push of the membership to adopt a formal position on homosexuality as being something other than "sin'. The consensus is to accept them into the clergy in many cases. If the consensus rules, sin will again be embraced. Without looking to prior precedent (the Early Church), the twisting of scripture and abandoning of godliness is permitted to run rampant, as it has and is.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 13:57:23 GMT -5
We're on complete agreement that however you come to a decision, as a church, if the decision itself is unscriptural, it's wrong hands down. But consensus cannot include a vote, and will not work within a denominational structure. I'll try to give an example of how it might work in the near future. BTW my fellowship is in the reformed tradition and does not do any of the stuff I'm talking about, which distresses me to some degree.
I actually used to fervently believe these things, about the early church fathers and the church, but much less so know. If you are referring to the process prompted by Mancion, they already had and knew what was scripture, as it was confirmed by signs and wonders during the apostolic age. I am not completely in disagreement with you on the preservation of the scripture, but I completely disagree if you are trying to say we need to interpret the bible through the grid of tradition. It has to be the opposite. The early church fathers added unbiblical requirement after unbiblical requirement, maybe for what they saw as good (pragmatic) reason, but we need to continue the reformation and strip the tradition back as far as we can to the NT era, so that it matches with the completed cannon, and not stuff added later.
In the OT, which was the scripture being talked about most of the time in the epistles, they did not have the completed cannon, they were completing it, and I would argue that we need to interpret the OT with the NT and not the other way around. I hope I am not misunderstanding what you are trying to say, let me know if I am.
I still think that if we were able to strip off the remaining priestly and over institutionalized mindset the reformers were stuck on, these issues would not be such a big deal. Not that they would go away, certainly not, but we wouldn't have them infecting entire denominations as they do now, it spreads like wildfire, even though most denominations claim to have "bottom up" authority, and also claim "consensus", when really they are using Robert's Rules, the infections do come from the top down (mostly originating in seminaries and then passed down through the congregations). Problem is, pretty much anyone can just go in to these places, go through the hoops, preach three example sermons and have a job interview, and BANG! They are pastors, and usually become the Chief Elder. Whereas, elders should be people the congregation are familiar with, whose reputations can be verified, local, and not often a paid position. Often we impose too many qualifications and make it too hard or too daunting, but really what's needed are humble men that are mature in the Lord, not Greek scholars that deliver 45 minute seminary grade lectures every Sunday. There is a place for all of that (not so much on Sunday though), but a lot of that would be reserved for different ministries such as evangelists and those with a more "apostolic" ministry (church planter types, itinerate ministers, etc). Nothing wrong with knowledge acquisition, but we tend to spend way too much time on it when there *are* more important issues than debating the perseverance of the saints - which I love to debate, by the way. When the "Christian Walk" becomes endless knowledge acquisition, then something is wrong. But maybe I'm getting too far off subject here.
I know I didn't touch on everything, so remind me (or even correct me) and next time I am online I'll get back to it!
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 19, 2008 15:27:23 GMT -5
There is a difference between recovering context and injecting tradition. When I talk about the Early Church, I am referring primarily to the first few hundred years. God joined Himself to humanity in the incarnation at a specific time, for a specific reason and to provide a specific context. The Early Church provides the context for establishing the Kingdom on Earth.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
You said a mouthful here. The cannon consisted of only the Septuagint in the first 100 yrs or so of the Church. Justin mentioned some "gospels" but Irenaeus was the one who sought canonization of four the four gospels in 160AD. Origen had a list similar to our NT but it was Athanasius who made a canonical list in 367AD. The ongoing separation between the Eastern and Western (Greek and Latin) Church caused quite a stir when it came to a formal universal recognition of the cannon. The Synod of Hippo made their stand in 393 followed by several other councils over the years. Other groups, including the Westminster crowd, had their own official recognitions of the cannon. The widely accepted OT text of present didn't even exist when the cannon was agreed upon. Which ever canon you are referring to, the books determined to be canonical were determined to be so by the Early Church. Had the Early Church not declared them canonical, they would not have survived to our present day. If you trust the Early Church to the point in which they decided upon the canon, you have the first 300+ years of the Church in which you attribute accuracy and fidelity to the faith. That is exactly what I am contending for; the ancient, authentic and Apostolic Faith of the Early Church.
This is a product of Protestantism, not the Early Church. In the first 300yrs of the Church, the congregations would chose godly men from their midst and submit them for leadership positions. The records of men fleeing the call to become priests by the congregation are not rare at all. No-one in the first couple hundred years of the Church sent out a resume in hopes of becoming a paid pastor with full benefits. That came a short while later, along with the power struggles that accompanied such positions.
The bottom line is that some folks want to find the "old time religion" of 100yrs ago, some want the Reformed version (though if the knew the history, bloodshed and turmoil they would rethink it), some want the Byzantium era to return and others want to usher in the "next big thing". We should simply want to be the Church that Jesus instituted nearly 2000yrs ago. Anything less, falls short.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 20, 2008 2:20:28 GMT -5
I'm glad that you are referring to an era closer to the Apostolic age, as many say "the early church" and mean 400 years+, or worse yet, but a close second, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Not exactly the early church.
I have heard speculation based on writings (or lists) from the early church age, but we don't and can't know the totality of what they had at hand. It is obvious they didn't carry around "bibles", but the Gospels and letters were circulating within a very short time of being written, and they were written very close together (I believe the most accurate estimate to be within a period of 10 years and yes I hold to the early dating of Revelation, which is an entirely different discussion!).
I guess I would rephrase and say the early church confirmed, and not determined, which books were canonical. To say "Had the Early Church not declared them canonical, they would not have survived to our present day" is a confusing statement to me, as if humans had to put their stamp of approval on God's word, or it would not exist? But yes I agree that God did use the church (the body of Christ, his believers) to preserve scripture.
Again, they may have thought they were "declaring", but in actuality, they were confirming, and I'm not sure that means we have to copy their traditions (after all you mention "priests", which is a clearly unbiblical office for NT Christians, I think you would agree).
Also I think it safe to say that Ephesians 2:19, "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets". is probably referring to the apostles and the prophets in their own time, and not throughout the post-Apostolic age, but considering some are given for the perfecting of the church, and we are far from perfect, I consider it possible that I'm wrong about that!
And the product of protestantism, yes, of course, I was referring mainly to our time or thereabouts, in reference to a previous comment, and I believe that relates more directly to the women in office issue. If it has become a job, like that, then it would seem natural to many that women can train for it also (boy to get there one would really have to do some exegetical mischief though).
I don't want to rag on those who have gone before us, certainly not, but the "old time religion" was also in need of perfecting, especially if it led to our current "next big thing" trendiness. Being immersed in Reformedom at the present time, I can see how it could lead to, as it often did, bloodshed and turmoil. We are probably more in agreement then we might think, cause I'm pretty sure I was going to say "We should simply want to be the Church that Jesus instituted nearly 2000yrs ago" first!!!
Amen, and amen...
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 20, 2008 8:20:21 GMT -5
Humans didn't have to put their "stamp" on God's Word, but humans wrote the words down, made the copies, preserved them and decided what got passed on and what didn't. The Spirit is what brings the scriptures to life, but the Church had to record and preserve the scriptures. Not all canon list agree, so there has definitely been some "declaring" along the way.
Not really. It is in the semantics, but "priest" is the accepted term everywhere other than the Protestant tradition. We use the word "pastor" (which is not in the Bible at all) with no reservation. If we get technical, all Christians are part of the priesthood (with different roles and functions of course).
1Pe 2:9 But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once [were] not a people but [are] now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
Alright, a construction illustration;
A foundation is something that is built upon. You can't reach the top of the wall without laying the second course of block. The Apostles and prophets are the first course and the Early church is the second course of block, Jesus being the chief cornerstone. We are sitting on top of a crooked wall trying to figure out where it got out of square. It isn't hard to see that the closer you get to the foundation, the truer the walls are.
The disciples of the Apostles had a pretty good idea about what the Apostles believed and taught about Church structure and worship. The writings of the Early Church may not be canonical, but they are invaluable, being they were the original product of the Apostles' teaching and work.
You are probably right.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 20, 2008 12:21:21 GMT -5
Uh - Oh, disputed books, a new can of worms! 'Holy men who were taught by the Spirit', again going back to the inspired writing of the Apostles (and the prophets, for now I generalize). The scripture is self-confirming (internally), the disputed books (I believe) are not, but I do think we should have the disputed books in our bibles because, as with the early church fathers, we can still learn much from them - with this I fully agree. As long as we're talking about the deuterocanonical books and not the gnostic "gospels" like Thomas (what was that, 200 years or so AD? Can't recall offhand). Reformers throughout the ages kept to many strongholds and thus I am open to the possibility that the deuterocanonical books (the "Catholic" extra books) could be inspired. I've really only read parts of Maccabees, the rest of my info comes from proof text style debunkings from protestant pastors. OK, preists, yes, technical and general or whatever there is definitely the "priesthood of all believers" because a priest in the Levitical (biblical) sense is one who mediates between God and man, which would be the believer himself or herself (uh oh women priests!) with our Lord Jesus Christ as the Great High Priest. But that is different from a pastor, which is found in the Greek word poimen, translated such in Eph 4:11, and also as shepherd elsewhere, the two being synonymous. Now, a "pastor" is gifted for teaching, and meets the requirements outlined in the "pastoral" epistles, but is really just another brother in the flock, not someone elevated above (which I'm sure will bring us to the authority passages!) as if there is a legitimate NT clergy/laity divide. I think the next layer after the foundation in the building is the bricks, the church, the whole church, and nothing but the church, with the bricks being the rest of the flock after the NT Apostles and NT era prophets, whatever the gifting (although I must allow for apostles and prophets in our day as stated in a previous post, every Reformed bone in my body cries out against that though). The writings of the early church fathers are invaluable, and have even influenced me on what I believe about certain things, but probably in a different way than you mean, I think. But they also point to a clergy/laity divide that is not to be found in the NT, but gradually evolved as a pragmatic way to deal with the fear of false teaching. But the bible tells how to deal with false teaching, and it's not by appointing a ruler over the people, as the early church fathers ended up doing (though it seems to be gradual). Clement of Rome said in his epstle to the Corinthians, AD95: Which is taken by most to mean a NT priestly caste, but even in his own letter he necessitates against it with words that are traceable to our scriptures: Which tells me all we really need are the inspired words of God contained in the Old and New Testaments, even though Clement of Rome was a great man of the faith (and Luther gets all the credit for justification! Pshaw!). Everyone should look at this letter, it's great. mb-soft.com/believe/txv/clement1.htm
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Dec 3, 2008 9:14:58 GMT -5
A very good book covering egalitarinism (women leadership roles) is written by Wayne Grudem entitled A new path to liberlism. It is very helpfull and covers several areas.
|
|
|
Post by thegooddoctorwho on Dec 3, 2008 14:16:42 GMT -5
Egalitarianism doesn't mean women in leadership roles...
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Dec 3, 2008 17:22:21 GMT -5
It pertains to it as you can look it up for your self.
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Dec 3, 2008 17:26:36 GMT -5
Egalitarianism has to do with eqaulity within a governing system so then do women or should women have the same leadership as men in a Church. This book answers that and many other concerns.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 9, 2008 16:24:15 GMT -5
1Ti 2:12 But I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 1Ti 2:7 ....I was appointed a herald and apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie), a teacher of the nations, in faith and truth.
"the nations" means us. Nations means openairoutreach users and their friends and families.
I (Paul) was appointed....a teacher of the [openairoutreach users and their friends and families] But I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
no teaching no having dominion no being noisy
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 11, 2008 12:33:25 GMT -5
1Ti 2:12 But I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 1Ti 2:7 .... I was appointed a herald and apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie), a teacher of the nations, in faith and truth. "the nations" means us. Nations means openairoutreach users and their friends and families. I (Paul) was appointed....a teacher of the [openairoutreach users and their friends and families] But I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. no teaching no having dominion no being noisyI hope your not saying that women can't teach sunday school, or her own childeren, and other women.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 19:18:28 GMT -5
my mom was a sunday school teacher, sunday school is a joke though, children should be taught of God's ways every day. When you lie down, when you get up, going in, going out What are dad's so busy doing that women would be left to teach "sunday school"? Of course women can teach their own children! says so in proverbs. of course women can teach women, unless you want to teach your own daughter about feminine things? older women should instruct younger women like it says in the bible
no teaching men no having dominion over men no being noisy, especially in the assembly
|
|