PDA

View Full Version : Separation INTRODUCTION



poochie
Dec 21st 2008, 10:23 PM
This is my intro to my article which will be some 3,000 + words. I plan to explain as much as I can.

--
The Doctrine of Separation

Separation is a heavlily-neglected practice among evangelicals and Charismatics, while itís the doctrine that separates Fundamentalists from the bunch. I grew up evangelical and almost never heard this doctrine being taught and the many evangelical and Charismatics that I have spoken with know little about this doctrine and do not take separation seriously. I asked the opinion of separation on an evangelical Internet discussion board and received little if any feedback. One poster said that separation is a tough subject to interpret and he had to pray about interpreting the various verses that speak on separation. This is a ridiculous assertion with little merit from the scriptures which are very black and white on its teachings on separation. The Bible commands Christians to practice separation in three areas and they are from the world, false teachers, and disobedient brethren. In this article will I be explaining the three types of separation as explained in the Bible. All scripture quotations unless otherwise indicated will be from the King James Version (KJV).

PsPickle
Dec 21st 2008, 10:29 PM
This is my intro to my article which will be some 3,000 + words. I plan to explain as much as I can.

--
The Doctrine of Separation

Separation is a heavlily-neglected practice among evangelicals and Charismatics, while itís the doctrine that separates Fundamentalists from the bunch. I grew up evangelical and almost never heard this doctrine being taught and the many evangelical and Charismatics that I have spoken with know little about this doctrine and do not take separation seriously. I asked the opinion of separation on an evangelical Internet discussion board and received little if any feedback. One poster said that separation is a tough subject to interpret and he had to pray about interpreting the various verses that speak on separation. This is a ridiculous assertion with little merit from the scriptures which are very black and white on its teachings on separation. The Bible commands Christians to practice separation in three areas and they are from the world, false teachers, and disobedient brethren. In this article will I be explaining the three types of separation as explained in the Bible. All scripture quotations unless otherwise indicated will be from the King James Version (KJV).


It also talks about love, mercy and reconcilation.

bennie
Dec 21st 2008, 11:15 PM
This is my intro to my article which will be some 3,000 + words. I plan to explain as much as I can.

--
The Doctrine of Separation

Separation is a heavlily-neglected practice among evangelicals and Charismatics, while it’s the doctrine that separates Fundamentalists from the bunch. I grew up evangelical and almost never heard this doctrine being taught and the many evangelical and Charismatics that I have spoken with know little about this doctrine and do not take separation seriously. I asked the opinion of separation on an evangelical Internet discussion board and received little if any feedback. One poster said that separation is a tough subject to interpret and he had to pray about interpreting the various verses that speak on separation. This is a ridiculous assertion with little merit from the scriptures which are very black and white on its teachings on separation. The Bible commands Christians to practice separation in three areas and they are from the world, false teachers, and disobedient brethren. In this article will I be explaining the three types of separation as explained in the Bible. All scripture quotations unless otherwise indicated will be from the King James Version (KJV).


well poochie.

that is a cheap shot.:hug: I am sure there is alot of other very important doctrines that i hold to, that you probably have not given a thought of day.

bennie

bennie
Dec 21st 2008, 11:16 PM
This is my intro to my article which will be some 3,000 + words. I plan to explain as much as I can.

--
The Doctrine of Separation

Separation is a heavlily-neglected practice among evangelicals and Charismatics, while itís the doctrine that separates Fundamentalists from the bunch. I grew up evangelical and almost never heard this doctrine being taught and the many evangelical and Charismatics that I have spoken with know little about this doctrine and do not take separation seriously. I asked the opinion of separation on an evangelical Internet discussion board and received little if any feedback. One poster said that separation is a tough subject to interpret and he had to pray about interpreting the various verses that speak on separation. This is a ridiculous assertion with little merit from the scriptures which are very black and white on its teachings on separation. The Bible commands Christians to practice separation in three areas and they are from the world, false teachers, and disobedient brethren. In this article will I be explaining the three types of separation as explained in the Bible. All scripture quotations unless otherwise indicated will be from the King James Version (KJV).


P.S. you have a grammer typo.:D

Bethany67
Dec 21st 2008, 11:19 PM
If this is planned as an academic article for your college work, I advise you to take all the personal stuff out of it. Stylistically that's not a good way to go in academic writing, and I agree the poke at bennie (if that's who you mean) is unnecessary and unpleasant.

ServantofTruth
Dec 21st 2008, 11:26 PM
I have sent you both 'friendship' requests.

I liked the original post and was interested in hearing more. When someone is prepared to study on any bible subject and then share, i am grateful.

PsPickle - i understand that you may have valid comments to add to the topic for balance, but please allow poochie to give us the full essay first.

Bennie - also please wait for the full message from the original poster and don't react even if you feel it may be valid.

Let's do this topic with Love, or one of our friendly moderators may need to step in. They are very fair, but also firm. :( SofTy.

Brother Mark
Dec 21st 2008, 11:41 PM
One thing that often gets lost in the fuss on this kind of study... what is the world? It certainly isn't entertainment, hair cuts, clothing, etc. But for some reason, it often gets defined that way. ;)

reformedct
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:21 AM
One thing that often gets lost in the fuss on this kind of study... what is the world? It certainly isn't entertainment, hair cuts, clothing, etc. But for some reason, it often gets defined that way. ;)

true. the world is not style, entertainment or media. The "world" is a way of thinking and living that is contrary to God's. The world is not people as individuals but a way of living that is wrong

I have loose-"friends" (aquantences) who are fornicators, drunkards, and other things. But i do not participate in or condone their "worldliness". However that does not mean if they need help fixing a pipe in their house that i will refuse to associate with them. If they are in a crisis i will try to help them, and all along the way i will tell them of their need for the beautiful Savior and to turn from their foolish life and really live the life they were made for with Jesus

people confuse associating with sinners to committing sin with them

they did the same to jesus. just because he was around drunkards and talked and communicated with them they said he was a drunkard too.

this is an error in the doctrine of seperation. We are seperated and sanctified by Jesus and His word. We are seprate because of our ways of living. We are not seperate physically. Sinners are everywhere. You want to avoid sinners, either pray that God takes u up like enoch or just commit suicide and go to heaven because sinner will be on this Earth till Jesus returns

Some people who claim we should never associate with sinners are actually the biggest cowards

they are afraid to have to be patient with someone in the face of their sin

they are afraid to really show genuine love in which you lay down your life for you enemy

they are afraid to befriend someone who is not like them. They dont want to deal with those "filthy people"

i got news for you. YOU ARE A SINNER. you are forgiven, but we are all sinners. Thats why Christ died. accepting christ doesnt mean:

"ok now i am a clean guy everyone else is filthy i gotta stay away"

no, you are still filthy in your own righteousness

you are righteouss because God has given you His own righteousness in Christ.

just as you needed to be saved, so do they

it takes more love to be a friend to someone who does not know God, and commit to being a light for the gospel in their life, than just track-bombing or corner preaching to random people

it will have greater effect if sinners are allowed in your presence to observe your lifestyle.

WHen Jesus taught, guess who was always coming to hear him?
greedy crooked tax collectors, prostitutes, and all kinds of wrongdoers were ATTRACTED TO JESUS'S TEACHINGS.

when you teach, do sinners come up to you to hear? or do you go up to them and point the finger? are they coming to hear you? or are you GOING to tell them?


Jesus walked around teaching. Sometimes sinners invited him over to party and he accepted.

If a sinner invited an extreme fundamentalist to a party today the fundamentalist would be offended and command them to repent on the spot.

Yes, we tell everyone to repent, but we do it with love. What greater love than to show them love even as they are unrepentant.

Jesus said, if you LOVE me, keep my commandments

we try to force people to obey someone they don't love.

If you are obeying christ but not in love with him you should check your heart, you may just be a modern day pharisee, knowing the Word but not seeing the lloving merciful God behind it.

the gospel is not: CLEAN UP YOUR ACT

the gospel is: you can never be good enough to be acceptable. So God died in your place to pay the penalty for all your sin even though he didnt have to. He did it because of His love and mercy. Now turn from your godless life to Him and he will forgive you through faith. You do not have to be good to earn it. Rather you should be good because he has given this great gift


We obey and serve because we have been saved

we dont obey and serve so we can be saved

PsPickle
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:51 AM
I have sent you both 'friendship' requests.

I liked the original post and was interested in hearing more. When someone is prepared to study on any bible subject and then share, i am grateful.

PsPickle - i understand that you may have valid comments to add to the topic for balance, but please allow poochie to give us the full essay first.

Bennie - also please wait for the full message from the original poster and don't react even if you feel it may be valid.

Let's do this topic with Love, or one of our friendly moderators may need to step in. They are very fair, but also firm. :( SofTy.


Please excuse me for the interruption. I assumed since he closed his post he wanted comments in return.

amazzin
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:54 AM
Poochie are you at it again?

We love dialogue here not monologues.
We love to discuss and not be preached at
We love to interact and not stand on the side lines reading novels.

PsPickle
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:06 AM
Poochie are you at it again?

We love dialogue here not monologues.
We love to discuss and not be preached at
We love to interact and not stand on the side lines reading novels.

Now I am confused. Do we respond or do we wait for the monologue to end and then respond? This is Bible Chat, is it not? I don't know if you guys are teaching or what. :confused

poochie
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:25 AM
Yeah I usually do my draft but usually my original drafts have errors. But thanks for pointing them out. The article should be done soon and I have the time to work on it, as I am on vacation.


P.S. you have a grammer typo.:D

Vhayes
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:27 AM
Poochie, I have no theological education, let alone a Masters in Theology. I don't know a whole lot of formal theology. What I do know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is this:
1 - Jesus ate with sinners, He was not an elitist. He did not separate Himself from sinners, He sought them out to talk to them about the way it SHOULD be.

2. - The Roman Catholic church created monasteries for their clergy. The theory behind that particular separation was laudable but it kept the church so far removed from the regular Joe, it simply did not work.

In my opinion, we are to be IN the world but not OF the world and we are to "judge" and therefore interact with the unsaved differently than we are our brothers and sisters.

Thank you for reading -
V

poochie
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:27 AM
To be honest with you I had no idea who made that comment. But regardless it was generalized and I made no specifics.

No this is not for a class but for my website where I am the editor and author. But I do expect quality and why this is only a small introduction and the rest of the article will be finished by the time I leave back for school. I plan to write 3,000 + words.


If this is planned as an academic article for your college work, I advise you to take all the personal stuff out of it. Stylistically that's not a good way to go in academic writing, and I agree the poke at bennie (if that's who you mean) is unnecessary and unpleasant.

poochie
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:29 AM
I accepted your request. Thanks for this post. The article should be finished by the 5th of January if not sooner.


I have sent you both 'friendship' requests.

I liked the original post and was interested in hearing more. When someone is prepared to study on any bible subject and then share, i am grateful.

PsPickle - i understand that you may have valid comments to add to the topic for balance, but please allow poochie to give us the full essay first.

Bennie - also please wait for the full message from the original poster and don't react even if you feel it may be valid.

Let's do this topic with Love, or one of our friendly moderators may need to step in. They are very fair, but also firm. :( SofTy.

VerticalReality
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:50 AM
Just a quick reminder everyone that we need to address the doctrinal issues and not make things personal.

Carry on . . .

poochie
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:32 PM
Thanks for that reminder. My article will be done by the 5th of the next month. Some misinterpret my position and confuse personal separation in the mix when I do not believe that I cannot personally associate or be friends with Evangelicals.


Just a quick reminder everyone that we need to address the doctrinal issues and not make things personal.

Carry on . . .

Veretax
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:46 PM
First let me say Poochie, that agree slightly. However, there is a danger and I have seen it happen in two churches now, where this "desire for separation" hinders the fellowship and becomes like the Galatians, hyper legalists who have lost their love for each other.

My spouse and I left a church over issues very much like this. It was not that we disagreed with being separate, but being separate cannot contradict the other responsibilities we have to love our neighbor as ourselves or to bear one anothers burdens, to be kind to one another, and so forth.

When I was in College a street preacher came to campus (and I missed him on his first day here) and he began by preaching against all sorts of Sin. My friends on the floor (most were not saved) sought to trap me by asking me what I thought of what he said and I simply replied, I don't know, I didn't see him, and I would have to hear him to know. So the next day I made it a point to sit and listen to what the man said, and while I agreed with what he was preaching, i discerned that his motives were to condemn, not to call people to repentance or a relationship with Christ. This I had a problem with, because two of these friends were openly homosexual and though they were burned at being called sinners, they were unable to hear the message of the Cross because that's all they heard. So I used the opportunity to say that all sin is detestable, lieing, stealing, sexual immorality of all sorts, but the entire point of the OT was that man was incapable on his own to keep God's law, it just wasn't possible because of our Sin Nature, and then I was able to witness to these two girls because of this, but I still feel the man's tactics were a bit off.





This is my intro to my article which will be some 3,000 + words. I plan to explain as much as I can.

--
The Doctrine of Separation

Separation is a heavlily-neglected practice among evangelicals and Charismatics, while itís the doctrine that separates Fundamentalists from the bunch. I grew up evangelical and almost never heard this doctrine being taught and the many evangelical and Charismatics that I have spoken with know little about this doctrine and do not take separation seriously. I asked the opinion of separation on an evangelical Internet discussion board and received little if any feedback. One poster said that separation is a tough subject to interpret and he had to pray about interpreting the various verses that speak on separation. This is a ridiculous assertion with little merit from the scriptures which are very black and white on its teachings on separation. The Bible commands Christians to practice separation in three areas and they are from the world, false teachers, and disobedient brethren. In this article will I be explaining the three types of separation as explained in the Bible. All scripture quotations unless otherwise indicated will be from the King James Version (KJV).

I don't think there is much interpretation to it. We are in the world but not of the World, and one are in particular where I disagreed with some of my fundamental friends is on Music. They draw the line based on style, I draw it based on message, and then whether or not its even correct musically. If it sounds like a racket to me, then to me its not music but noise and dissonance. But I always had to shake my head when the pastor would get on a tear about All forms of "music" yet say nothing about televeision, movies, magazines, or other such things in the world. I've found music to be uplifting and inspirin and it has helped strengthen my faith in many areas. Anyhow I look forward to reading your article, but as I find myself saying often, I find that in all things there is a balance between what is scriptural and what is not, and its very easy particularly in the area of separation to go over that line in one way or another.



Not sure if this helps, but I do understand what you speak of. One area where I actually disagree with my current church is having "community" services in churches or under preaching from people whose doctrine I find in error (for example: This past thanksgiving they were to have a Prayer service and a certain pastor of the Presybterian church (who happened to be a woman) was to be the speaker. I have a biblical problem with that and hence do not participate in these events because of my disagreeing with these ecumenical ideas. there has been talk around the church about starting a "Community Choir" but I've not drawn any lines on this as of yet as thus far all I have heard is talk. This of course is just one example where I disagree thought I'd cite it as an example..)

poochie
Dec 23rd 2008, 03:30 PM
The Bible is very clear that a woman shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent.

http://www.cerm.info/sermons/text/women_ministry.htm
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/women_in_ministry.htm

Evangelicals debate over this issue and Fundamentalists do not debate over this black and white issue and it was not even mentioned in my Graduate Level "issues in Church Ministry" course which I just completed.



Not sure if this helps, but I do understand what you speak of. One area where I actually disagree with my current church is having "community" services in churches or under preaching from people whose doctrine I find in error (for example: This past thanksgiving they were to have a Prayer service and a certain pastor of the Presybterian church (who happened to be a woman) was to be the speaker. I have a biblical problem with that and hence do not participate in these events because of my disagreeing with these ecumenical ideas. there has been talk around the church about starting a "Community Choir" but I've not drawn any lines on this as of yet as thus far all I have heard is talk. This of course is just one example where I disagree thought I'd cite it as an example..)

Veretax
Dec 23rd 2008, 03:35 PM
The Bible is very clear that a woman shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent.

http://www.cerm.info/sermons/text/women_ministry.htm
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/women_in_ministry.htm

Evangelicals debate over this issue and Fundamentalists do not debate over this black and white issue and it was not even mentioned in my Graduate Level "issues in Church Ministry" course which I just completed.

My current church is not fundamental though the one I left a year or so ago was supposed to be fundamental. Not sure if I mentioned it, but I agree with you on this.

poochie
Dec 23rd 2008, 03:56 PM
If it was separatist then they were Fundamental.

You should leave your church and go to one that takes the Bible seriously. You can go to a Conservative Evangelical Church if not a Fundamental. Go to one that is serious about the Bible, because if you do not it will affect you. Many put their fellowships ahead of God and that is their sin. Do not do this. God is more important than your fellowships.

No Church that allows women to preach or teach men is conservative or serious about the scriptures. Get out of there!

Also to note that I do not believe in a extreme position being that women cannot pray out loud, must always wear a head covering, or cannot teach children, change diapers or such without a man present. I have been in Fundamentalists churches were women had to wear head coverings, could not teach children without the presence of a man, could not give testimonies, or pray out loud, and I bet if I looked hard enough could find one that did not allow women to change diapers without the presence of a man. My point is this. Do not get on the extreme on this issue. But do take the scriptures seriously and it very clearly forbids women from preaching, teaching or having spiritual authority over a man in the church.


My current church is not fundamental though the one I left a year or so ago was supposed to be fundamental. Not sure if I mentioned it, but I agree with you on this.

Veretax
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:20 PM
If it was separatist then they were Fundamental.

You should leave your church and go to one that takes the Bible seriously. You can go to a Conservative Evangelical Church if not a Fundamental. Go to one that is serious about the Bible, because if you do not it will affect you. Many put their fellowships ahead of God and that is their sin. Do not do this. God is more important than your fellowships.


First, let me correct you on a few misunderstandings. This service did NOT happen in our church, it was announced in as our church is part of a "local association of churches" but in no way were any of us forced, ordered, or compelled to go. I've not gone to one yet and I never will. Secondly, this church I know its not fundamental, I'm still not sure what it is at this point. Its a very old Church, and the Lord has led us here for the moment. I mean that demographically, there are not a lot of younger people here I think I'm one of maybe 4 couples, so This church is clearly in transition, and I've already seen some sparks beginning in the church since we've come that have excited our Pastor and his wife for sure.


As for fellowships, the only fellowship I have presently is with those in this church. I know people in other "churches" in town, but they are casual acquaintances and I know this clearly. I also understand what you are saying, and the time is likely coming where we will have to make a decision and move, not just because of this church, but because I feel we are overpaying for our current housing. When I finally convince my wife of this fact I think a move is going to happen, but I'm not sure where yet. I am aware of a lot more churches outside our tiny city that could fit the bill, but I'm just doing my best to grow where we are presently.






No Church that allows women to preach or teach men is conservative or serious about the scriptures. Get out of there!First, I didn't say my current church allowed this, it happened at a "community service" that was held at another building in town, not ours. I'm not even sure if any of our fellowship went. However, rest assured that If I did see something that was sorely anti-biblical of them I'd then be compelled to move on, but I've not seen it of the pastor or the people yet, and we've not yet been here long enough to draw over all conclusions of the beliefs of the people. (but as I discovered last year, it doesn't take much to demonstrate that a body of believers is clearly out of God's will. Right now my wife for one is happy here, we were not happy at the last church and it was because of the dulled hearts and unloving and uncaring attitudes of its congregation. The pastor was Solid, but the people were so hyper legalistic that it was nigh impossible to try to build relationships with them. Plenty of Talk, not much doing, and It literally made our family sick until we finally realized that the Lord was wanting us away from that which was hindering our spiritual progress.

I don't yet know where we will be next year. We are members of this church, and I know with someone like myself and my wife who are capable of being strong lights and leaders that those who have grown older and tired can have even their hearts reignited. The question is whether we will get the opportunity. I don't have an answer to that yet, but I feel the Lord has something for us to do here, we just have not found it yet.





Also to note that I do not believe in a extreme position being that women cannot pray out loud, must always wear a head covering, or cannot teach children, change diapers or such without a man present. I have been in Fundamentalists churches were women had to wear head coverings, could not teach children without the presence of a man, could not give testimonies, or pray out loud, and I bet if I looked hard enough could find one that did not allow women to change diapers without the presence of a man. My point is this. Do not get on the extreme on this issue. But do take the scriptures seriously and it very clearly forbids women from preaching, teaching or having spiritual authority over a man in the church.Nods, I agree with you on this, there are some areas doctrinally where I am still sorting out this church to determine whether they are just "going with" the flow as it has been, or if these are ingrained convictions in some areas. In the case of this community church, this has been an event in this town since its founding some two hundred years ago. It is not an abstraction of our Church but a tradition in the town. Twice now I've basically said no to going. Once because they were having a Roman Catholic Priest speak, the most recent because of the pastor woman whom I mentioned. I know I've challenged some of the beliefs already since we came here. Right now I'm more concerned about keeping solid in my devotions and learning what I can from God then worrying about our place. That could change in a heart beat though, and I hope it doesn't come to that with this church for I care very much for this pastor and his family unlike I did for the previous one although I had a respect and admiration for certain stands he had taken. In any case, know that I understand your points and won't dismiss them out of hand, I'm very much on my toes in this area since what has happened since 2005, and I don't know what the Lord has planned for us yet I am simply waiting.

If you want to continue this discussion though I suggest we take it to PM rather than derail your thread further.


Referring to brother Mark's Post:

---Quote (Originally by poochie)---
No Church that allows women to preach or teach men is conservative or serious about the scriptures. Get out of there!

---End Quote---
Good thing Apollos didn't feel that way or else he would have not listened to Priscilla and Aquilla. I can't think what might have happened had Israel ignored Debra's rule.

We do need to be serious about the scriptures. All of them.


There is a difference between evangelism and discussion and preaching. Pauls prohibition had to do with teaching from the pulpit in essence, the entire passage from I beleive the 10th or 11th chapter to that point is dealing with what is a disruptive worship order. I don't hav a problem with a woman witnessing or discussing with people of the opposite gender or teaching in Sunday School, but I do have a problem with them behind a pulpit in essence using the authority of a "Pastor," as a shepherd of a flock. I agree with Poochie, I'm not fanatical about this, Women have their ministries and duties too, but they are not to do so in a way of usurping authority from a man. Especially in the corporate meeting of the church (what we'd call our sunday sermon or worship service)

poochie
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:44 PM
First, I didn't say my current church allowed this, it happened at a "community service" that was held at another building in town, not ours.

The fact that they allowed it to happen in any fellowship is a red flag to me. No Bible preaching church would allow such a unbiblical practice!

Next semester I am reading a number of books. The first is listed below and the ones after that are other recommendations.

In Pursuit of Purity

Another well done book- The Tragedy of Compromise

Or these

The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
The Vanishing Conscience


---Quote (Originally by poochie)---
No Church that allows women to preach or teach men is conservative or serious about the scriptures. Get out of there!

---End Quote---
Good thing Apollos didn't feel that way or else he would have not listened to Priscilla and Aquilla. I can't think what might have happened had Israel ignored Debra's rule.

We do need to be serious about the scriptures. All of them.

There is a difference between evangelism and discussion and preaching. Pauls prohibition had to do with teaching from the pulpit in essence, the entire passage from I beleive the 10th or 11th chapter to that point is dealing with what is a disruptive worship order. I don't hav a problem with a woman witnessing or discussing with people of the opposite gender or teaching in Sunday School, but I do have a problem with them behind a pulpit in essence using the authority of a "Pastor," as a shepherd of a flock. I agree with Poochie, I'm not fanatical about this, Women have their ministries and duties too, but they are not to do so in a way of usurping authority from a man. Especially in the corporate meeting of the church (what we'd call our sunday sermon or worship service)

The problem with this type of thinking is it makes the assumption which the text does not communicate. Often do liberals use this to aid their argument. The Historical Grammatical approach must be utilized in interpreting the passage and once it is, then will we come to the conclusion that a woman cannot teach Sunday school (with men present) or preach in the main service.

But I do agree with your reading from what the text says that women can minister to other women and help others.

Brother Mark
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:47 PM
The problem with this type of thinking is it makes the assumption which the text does not communicate. Often do liberals use this to aid their argument. The Historical Grammatical approach must be utilized in interpreting the passage and once it is, then will we come to the conclusion that a woman cannot teach Sunday school or preach in the main service.

But I do agree with your reading from what the text says that women can minister to other women and help others.

So when Paul interpreted the OT passage concerning not muzzling the ox that treads the grain, did he use a grammatical approach? Or did he go to the Author and ask for revelation on the passage?

poochie
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:53 PM
So when Paul interpreted the OT passage concerning not muzzling the ox that treads the grain, did he use a grammatical approach? Or did he go to the Author and ask for revelation on the passage?

Mark dont try and make the text say what you want it to say. Fundamentalists spend very little time exegeting or explaining 1 Cor 14, & 1 Tim 2 because the meaning from the text is black and white.

But for you I have a Evangelical website for you to go to. I have spoken with the president of this organization and he is a good man.

http://www.cbmw.org/

Blessings!

Emanate
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:56 PM
Yeah I usually do my draft but usually my original drafts have errors. But thanks for pointing them out. The article should be done soon and I have the time to work on it, as I am on vacation.


You did not note that he/she spelled grammar incorrectly?

Brother Mark
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:58 PM
Mark dont try and make the text say what you want it to say. Fundamentalists spend very little time exegeting or explaining 1 Cor 14, & 1 Tim 2 because the meaning from the text is black and white.

But for you I have a Evangelical website for you to go to. I have spoken with the president of this organization and he is a good man.


I said nothing about the text Poochie. What I did say was about the way people interpret. It's not about grammar. Is grammar your teacher or is the Holy Spirit?

I ask again, did Paul use grammar to interpret the meaning of muzzling the ox or did he go to the Author and get revelation?

poochie
Dec 23rd 2008, 08:04 PM
Mark using the approach you are using you can make the text say whatever needs to be said. The Holy Spirit is to be used and He will guide us into truth. But what many "liberals" believe to be the Holy Spirit speaking is really nothing more than their "itching ears."

Mark the bottom line. The text is black and white and the meaning is very clear. Women cannot teach or preach or have authority over men.


I said nothing about the text Poochie. What I did say was about the way people interpret. It's not about grammar. Is grammar your teacher or is the Holy Spirit?

I ask again, did Paul use grammar to interpret the meaning of muzzling the ox or did he go to the Author and get revelation?

poochie
Dec 23rd 2008, 08:06 PM
I am sorry for this rabit trail and its nothing to do directly with the title of the thread. However I do believe in separating from churches/fellowships that believe women can teach/preach or have authority over men. But that is under the "Separation from disobedient brethren" topic which I will be explaining last in my article on separation which I need to get back to as I am working on it at this time.

Will post it when it is done Lord Willing.


Peace

Brother Mark
Dec 23rd 2008, 08:32 PM
Mark using the approach you are using you can make the text say whatever needs to be said. The Holy Spirit is to be used and He will guide us into truth. But what many "liberals" believe to be the Holy Spirit speaking is really nothing more than their "itching ears."

Mark the bottom line. The text is black and white and the meaning is very clear. Women cannot teach or preach or have authority over men.

Ah, so God sinned when he put Debra in charge. :hmm: Or when he allowed Myriam to prophesy.

So if we take it as black and white, then women cannot speak in church at all. They have to "remain silent". Grammar tells us that means they can't sing either, nor play an instrument, for the words "remain silent" are crystal clear. Yet, I have a sneaking suspicion that you will now tell me that the words "remain silent" do not really mean remain silent but rather, it only applies to teaching men. :rolleyes: Ah, the contradictions abound!

Indeed, the Holy Spirit is needed to understand any and all passages. And the bible is better understood when taken as a whole.

Bethany67
Dec 23rd 2008, 08:53 PM
So if we take it as black and white, then women cannot speak in church at all. They have to "remain silent". Grammar tells us that means they can't sing either, nor play an instrument, for the words "remain silent" are crystal clear.

Well it can't mean completely silent because then how would they prophesy? ;)

Veretax
Dec 24th 2008, 03:13 PM
Ah, so God sinned when he put Debra in charge. :hmm: Or when he allowed Myriam to prophesy.

So if we take it as black and white, then women cannot speak in church at all. They have to "remain silent". Grammar tells us that means they can't sing either, nor play an instrument, for the words "remain silent" are crystal clear. Yet, I have a sneaking suspicion that you will now tell me that the words "remain silent" do not really mean remain silent but rather, it only applies to teaching men. :rolleyes: Ah, the contradictions abound!

Indeed, the Holy Spirit is needed to understand any and all passages. And the bible is better understood when taken as a whole.


God did NOT put deborah in charge. He sent her to tell Barak (I think that's spelled right), what God wanted him to do. Barak was to go up and do as God commanded, but he wouldn't unless deborah came with him, because of this the lord said that the honor of the battle would not come to him, and thus the king they were facing was killed in a tent by a woman, not by Barak or any man under his command. It was a dishonor in that effect, but in no way was deborah putting herselve in authority over Barak, she was only telling him what God had commanded her to say. To have done this not would have been sin akin to what happened to Jonah I believe.


The entire passage about being silent has to do with the corporate worship, and it is clear that the number of persons speaking should be limited. 2 or 3 With tongues and then interpretation or 2 or three to prophesy so that it can be confirmed by the elders. Otherwise you'd have massive disorder as everyone who felt they had something to say would be speaking out of turn and that's what Paul was railing against, if an unbeliever came in and saw this they would have thought them some how mad.


My understanding of the passage is that this is talking about the preaching to the corporate body, not to singing if pslams, or hymns, nor to praise or prayer. Paul was attempting to correct the error in the manner the Corinthians were worshiping so that all would be edified.

Brother Mark
Dec 24th 2008, 03:44 PM
God did NOT put deborah in charge. He sent her to tell Barak (I think that's spelled right), what God wanted him to do.

So Deborah (a woman) had a direct message from God for Barak (a man).



It was a dishonor in that effect, but in no way was deborah putting herselve in authority over Barak, she was only telling him what God had commanded her to say.So a woman can tell a man what God desires for him to do? She can share with him the word of the Lord?


My understanding of the passage is that this is talking about the preaching to the corporate body, not to singing if pslams, or hymns, nor to praise or prayer. Paul was attempting to correct the error in the manner the Corinthians were worshiping so that all would be edified.Ah, so we can't just take the passage about being silent in a grammatical way alone? You mean we need to search the scriptures to get a full view of Paul is speaking about?

Since Deborah was a judge, what do you do with this passage about authority?

Judg 4:4-5

4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 And she used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.
NASB

As for Barak, it is interesting that he made the hall of faith being mentioned in Hebrews 11.

Can we safely then use only grammar to rightly divide the word of truth?

Veretax
Dec 24th 2008, 04:26 PM
So Deborah (a woman) had a direct message from God for Barak (a man).


Right.



So a woman can tell a man what God desires for him to do? She can share with him the word of the Lord?


There is no reason that a woman cannot tell a man what she believes God desires him to do. The problem here though is as a Prophetess, Deborah likely was literally told from God, and since we don't typically see God working that way today, such advice would have to be inferred, but I believe there is a right and a wrong way to tell folks things, and it can be done without putting one's self in authority over them.




Ah, so we can't just take the passage about being silent in a grammatical way alone? You mean we need to search the scriptures to get a full view of Paul is speaking about?



This revelation only hit me a few weeks ago when we were discussing tongues and such, but its clear that 4 or 5 chapters (possibly more, I'd have to go recount to be exact in my number) Paul is dealing with problems in the manner the Corinthians were meeting. I know a lot of Fundamentalists and hyper-literalists will take that verse and say oh Paul wrote it it must be thus.

You've probably heard the analogy of just taking ang reading three verses to see what God said and ignoring Context. So you flip over and you see that Judas hung himself. You flip a few pages, and you see jesus say, go and do likewise, and then you turn a few more pages and see jesus say, what you do, do quickly.

So you see, when studying scripture I think its important to do so expository as much as possible because yuo will miss some of the meaning of text without having the other parts written around it in the conversation, and not just the localy subtext and context but the global subtext and context of the bible in general.




Since Deborah was a judge, what do you do with this passage about authority?

Judg 4:4-5

4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 And she used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.
NASB

As for Barak, it is interesting that he made the hall of faith being mentioned in Hebrews 11.

Can we safely then use only grammar to rightly divide the word of truth?


I don't think the Judges were the same as our Pastors or even Kings in the OT. The practice began when Moses came to his father in law jethro after the Exodus:

Exodus 18:13-27 (NKJV)
13 And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. 14 So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”

15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.”

17 So Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you do is not good. 18 Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. 19 Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”

24 So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26 So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves. 27 Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way to his own land.

Notice what Moses was doing, yes he was a great leader to the Israelites, but he was judging between them, and on the statutes of God. This I believe is what the Judges in essence did.


It's probably best to bring the passage into the text:



Judges 4:1-10 (NKJV)
1 When Ehud was dead, the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord. 2 So the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who dwelt in Harosheth Hagoyim. 3 And the children of Israel cried out to the Lord; for Jabin had nine hundred chariots of iron, and for twenty years he had harshly oppressed the children of Israel.

4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6 Then she sent and called for Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, “Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded, ‘Go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor; take with you ten thousand men of the sons of Naphtali and of the sons of Zebulun; 7 and against you I will deploy Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude at the River Kishon; and I will deliver him into your hand’?”

8 And Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!”

9 So she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. 10 And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; he went up with ten thousand men under his command, and Deborah went up with him.



The story does not tell us very much about Deborah to be honest, nor does it tell us how she became a judge. We know she was judging Israel, but its not claer whether she was THE judge, or just one of many as the practice started by moses in Exodus 18.

I dug back into Deuteronomy and found this nugget which seems to define what the Judge's roll was.


Deuteronomy 19:15-21 (NKJV)
15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. 16 If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, 17 then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. 18 And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, 19 then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 20 And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


Also in Exodus:

Exodus 22:7-13 (NKJV)
7 “If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. 8 If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods.

9 “For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. 10 If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, 11 then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. 12 But if, in fact, it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. 13 If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn.


So clearly these judges were as it sounds, they judged between the people, and between the people and God. This appears to be very similar to what happens in our Court Systems of today. It was not so much as an instructive post as a judicial one, explaining the law and settling disputes. This is a different role then what the Priests and Prophets did, and yes Deborah was a Prophetess. Prophetesses's are only mentioned in a few places in the bible or OT and whenever they are they clearly seem to be standing out from the other prophets that are around.

However, the point I take from the story is not that a woman was a prophetess, but that because Barak did not take her at her word the honor of the battle was not his to claim.

Brother Mark
Dec 24th 2008, 04:46 PM
However, the point I take from the story is not that a woman was a prophetess, but that because Barak did not take her at her word the honor of the battle was not his to claim.

There's much to be gleaned from the story. A judge was to discern the will of God concerning folks and their issues. There is authority applied in a judge for what he/she says was the final say in the matter. God spoke to this man Barak, through a woman. Yet, many fundamentalist today would refuse the word of God if it came to them through a woman.

Here's the safe thing... God teaches us about authority in scripture. He set up a pattern that should be honored. Yet, he also revealed to us that there will be exceptions to that pattern. Deborah was the only female judge. But she is not the only female prophet. Myriam too was spoken to by God for the benefit of the people. Yet, Moses led.

The whole point is that context is the entire bible, not just the entire sentence, verse, chapter or book. Fundamentalist can get caught up in the grammar of a particular passage and then make a statement that cannot stand when upheld against the entire scriptures.

As you and I have already discussed, if grammar is to be our deciding factor when understanding doctrine, then by the grammar presented in those passages, women must remain silent! They cannot make a sound. But we know this to be false. There is much more to rightly dividing the word of God than understanding language.

poochie
Dec 24th 2008, 04:57 PM
Thats the common argument made by the liberals when the text in no way shape or form communicates what you have spoken. 1 Cor 14 can be said, but what do you do about 1 Tim 2-3 among others that very clearly speak of male elders, leaders?

No when interpreted properly the passage is not just talking about worship but about all leadership. Paul go's back to the beginning of time and points back the male leadership and says (for Adam was formed first and then Eve). From the creation was the male to lead the woman. Its only the liberals that are damaging the creation design by making up some worship scenario at Corinth that the text does not communicate.

Only the liberal evangelicals and Charismatics debate over this issue. Serious Fundamentalist Bible preaching churches do not. As I said earlier I have been to more than 20 Fundamentalist churches and have spoken with hundreds of Fundamentalist females and not a single one questioned her leadership and her role in the ministry.






God did NOT put deborah in charge. He sent her to tell Barak (I think that's spelled right), what God wanted him to do. Barak was to go up and do as God commanded, but he wouldn't unless deborah came with him, because of this the lord said that the honor of the battle would not come to him, and thus the king they were facing was killed in a tent by a woman, not by Barak or any man under his command. It was a dishonor in that effect, but in no way was deborah putting herselve in authority over Barak, she was only telling him what God had commanded her to say. To have done this not would have been sin akin to what happened to Jonah I believe.


The entire passage about being silent has to do with the corporate worship, and it is clear that the number of persons speaking should be limited. 2 or 3 With tongues and then interpretation or 2 or three to prophesy so that it can be confirmed by the elders. Otherwise you'd have massive disorder as everyone who felt they had something to say would be speaking out of turn and that's what Paul was railing against, if an unbeliever came in and saw this they would have thought them some how mad.


My understanding of the passage is that this is talking about the preaching to the corporate body, not to singing if pslams, or hymns, nor to praise or prayer. Paul was attempting to correct the error in the manner the Corinthians were worshiping so that all would be edified.

poochie
Dec 24th 2008, 05:18 PM
Being silent does not mean not communicating, it means being passive. In Fundamentalist churches women realize their authority and their role and that is to submit to the man. They are being silent and passive and submissive to the man as God ordained from the creation and this was for the woman to submit to the man.


There's much to be gleaned from the story. A judge was to discern the will of God concerning folks and their issues. There is authority applied in a judge for what he/she says was the final say in the matter. God spoke to this man Barak, through a woman. Yet, many fundamentalist today would refuse the word of God if it came to them through a woman.

Here's the safe thing... God teaches us about authority in scripture. He set up a pattern that should be honored. Yet, he also revealed to us that there will be exceptions to that pattern. Deborah was the only female judge. But she is not the only female prophet. Myriam too was spoken to by God for the benefit of the people. Yet, Moses led.

The whole point is that context is the entire bible, not just the entire sentence, verse, chapter or book. Fundamentalist can get caught up in the grammar of a particular passage and then make a statement that cannot stand when upheld against the entire scriptures.

As you and I have already discussed, if grammar is to be our deciding factor when understanding doctrine, then by the grammar presented in those passages, women must remain silent! They cannot make a sound. But we know this to be false. There is much more to rightly dividing the word of God than understanding language.

Veretax
Dec 24th 2008, 05:38 PM
First off let me get this straight that I am not a liberal. And yes I agree with you, you can't take the passage in Corinthians and ignore what Paul said in 1 Timothy 2-3 either. Also, it is clear from the qualifications of bishops, elders, deacons that all are supposed to be husbands of one wife, so its clear that those holding officer are to be men. I have no disagreement with you on this.

And while I don't claim to be a fundamentalist, I'm probably about as close as you can get to being a fundamentalist without actually being. I'm a biblicist first and fore most and I try to interpret scripture by scripture and admittedly it takes time to get a full knowledge of scripture, and I'm still not complete in that area yet, but I'm working on it.

Chimon
Dec 24th 2008, 06:08 PM
I'm not highly educated on what you are talking about, but I have discussed this matter with a professor from Loyola, and from that conversation and my subsequent study of the Pauline Epistles, I have a few ideas that I hope might contribute a little to the conversation. So, this is what I got, take it for what it's worth to you:

Christians are not to be yoked to unbelievers, this is true, and I dont think anyone is arguing that they should be.

However, Christians are also supposed to be pervasively engaged in their culture. They should not be isolated from sinners, but they should be common in all the daily aspects of life. They should be found participating in the same events and practices as unbelievers EXCEPT when these things are sinful.

Even in the case of sinful activities, Christians may be called to be present but not participating, as a witness to the unbelievers.

Paul says, "Walk in wisdom towards outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be seasoned with with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." (Col 4:5)

According to to Dr. Clinton Arnold, Ph.D. University of Aberdeen, of Talbot School of Theology and Biola University:

"This statement echoes the teaching of Jesus when he called his disciples to be "the salt of the earth" (Matt. 5:13). When applied to conversation, the metaphor suggests speaking in an interesting, stimulating, and wise way. Paul's comments assume that the Colossian believers are vitally involved in the local community and have ample opportunities to interact with outsiders in a way that would commend the gospel to them." [bold, quotes, parens in original source]

This was really interesting to me, because it means the totality of life is missional and devotional. We are, in my interpretation, already separate spiritually, but to be involved and unseparate physically so as to be the "salt of the earth." If this is not the case, why does Paul quote pagan lyricists and philosophers in witnessing to the unsaved and in exhorting Christians?


Well, thats how I see it. I hope that's helpful to some degree. Tell me what you think of it.

Love in Christ,
Chimon

Kahtar
Dec 24th 2008, 06:30 PM
Man, I got excited there for a minute! I thought this thread was actually going to be about separation. Instead I find it's about division. Oh, well.:rolleyes:
So Poochie, in your article, are you going to say anything about separation from sin, separation from the world, and separation from self? Probably the first two but not the latter, ey?

poochie
Dec 24th 2008, 11:35 PM
Talbot School of theology is a Evangelical Seminary and not a Fundamentalist seminary. I am arguing from a Fundamentalist POV and worldview. Talbot has little if any authority in Fundamentalist circles. But regardless I have seen random quotes from time to time at my school from their professors. However that school is not endorsed in Fundamentalism.

I wrote a first draft of my Separation from the World article and I posted it.



I'm not highly educated on what you are talking about, but I have discussed this matter with a professor from Loyola, and from that conversation and my subsequent study of the Pauline Epistles, I have a few ideas that I hope might contribute a little to the conversation. So, this is what I got, take it for what it's worth to you:

Christians are not to be yoked to unbelievers, this is true, and I dont think anyone is arguing that they should be.

However, Christians are also supposed to be pervasively engaged in their culture. They should not be isolated from sinners, but they should be common in all the daily aspects of life. They should be found participating in the same events and practices as unbelievers EXCEPT when these things are sinful.

Even in the case of sinful activities, Christians may be called to be present but not participating, as a witness to the unbelievers.

Paul says, "Walk in wisdom towards outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be seasoned with with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." (Col 4:5)

According to to Dr. Clinton Arnold, Ph.D. University of Aberdeen, of Talbot School of Theology and Biola University:

"This statement echoes the teaching of Jesus when he called his disciples to be "the salt of the earth" (Matt. 5:13). When applied to conversation, the metaphor suggests speaking in an interesting, stimulating, and wise way. Paul's comments assume that the Colossian believers are vitally involved in the local community and have ample opportunities to interact with outsiders in a way that would commend the gospel to them." [bold, quotes, parens in original source]

This was really interesting to me, because it means the totality of life is missional and devotional. We are, in my interpretation, already separate spiritually, but to be involved and unseparate physically so as to be the "salt of the earth." If this is not the case, why does Paul quote pagan lyricists and philosophers in witnessing to the unsaved and in exhorting Christians?


Well, thats how I see it. I hope that's helpful to some degree. Tell me what you think of it.

Love in Christ,
Chimon

Chimon
Dec 24th 2008, 11:41 PM
So, because on of the professors I quoted works a few universities one of which disagrees with one of your theological views, his interpretation of Philippians is invalid?

And because I cited him, my interpretation is invalid?

poochie
Dec 25th 2008, 01:53 AM
No we use plenty of evangelical authors in the seminary and college. I did not disagree with what that professor stated.

I posted a 1st draft of the article on separation from the world here.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=152086


So, because on of the professors I quoted works a few universities one of which disagrees with one of your theological views, his interpretation of Philippians is invalid?

And because I cited him, my interpretation is invalid?