Originally Posted by seeking1

Though I don’t agree with the author’s hard line Baptist position, there is so much in this article that simply cannot be ignored, it is a scathing indictment of Nee, Lee, Pentecostalism and how they all were the fruit of the “Keswick Revival”. .

Originally Posted by Ohio

do you know who wrote this? What is their agenda?

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee - The Overcoming Life

In Chefoo I learned a lesson. One day Miss Fischbacher and I were praying for definite gifts from God. I was praying for the gift of faith, while she was praying for the gift of healing. After we prayed for a quarter of an hour, both of us received the gifts. In the evening we went to the meeting, and Sister An told me that another sister living downstairs in the meeting place was going out of her mind... The next day I invited Miss Fischbacher to come with me to see the sick sister. Of course, I could have gone alone, but Miss Fischbacher had just received the gift of healing, and I had received the gift of faith. Why should we not apply them now? When Miss Fischbacher got my invitation, she was somewhat hesitant. She said she would pray first. After she prayed, she decided to come. ….The Lord gave me faith. My faith rose up in me, and I began to praise the Lord! I knew that she was going to be healed. After Miss Fischbacher prayed, she also had faith and began to praise the Lord. Then two brothers and a sister also prayed a few words, but they were not in the flow of the Spirit as much as we were. Then the time came, and I had to take Miss Fischbacher to her boat.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I find it amazing how the Recovery can use people, and then discard them. And vice versa. The Keswick Convention of T.A. Sparks was always held in high regard by Lee.

Originally Posted by David Woodbridge PhD Thesis on the Brethren in China

Most of the duration of Nee’s second trip to Britain was spent at the Honor Oak Fellowship Centre of Theodore Austin-Sparks. Formed in 1925, Honor Oak hosted regular church meetings, but also formed a larger operation that included residential conferences and regular publications. Nee had been introduced to Austin-Sparks’ writings by Margaret Barber, and he had subsequently befriended a CIM missionary, Elizabeth Fischbacher, who had been part of the Honor Oak Fellowship before becoming a missionary. Fischbacher resigned from the CIM in 1935 and became associated with the Little Flock. It was she who had suggested that Nee accompany her and a group of missionaries to Britain in 1938.

Originally Posted by aron

Originally Posted by seeking1

So, I do realize that the local church was kind of hard on sisters, depending on the locality, it was harder for some sisters than others..

Originally Posted by FaithSavesKeswick

In 1935 Nee became involved with Pentecostalism through Miss Elizabeth Fischbacher of the China Inland Mission.[1665] He had “overcome his reservations about women preachers sufficiently to attend her meetings,” and, in line with his Keswick continuationism, “acknowledged the Holy Spirit’s . . . gifts to the church of healing and of speaking with and interpretation of tongues.”[1666] Nee “found peace and spiritual blessing in her message and some experiences associated with her Pentecostal theology.”[1667] Miss Fischbacher, who translated various items for the Little Flock into English,[1668] accompanied Nee to the 1938 Keswick convention;[1669] the addresses in Nee’s The Normal Christian Life were delivered on this trip to the West.[1670]

Originally Posted by seeking1

We all know it is not and it wasn't my intent to convey that it was a verse. But the proposition was that "you will be like God". So you tell me, what was Eve looking for?

Originally Posted by seeking1

Amen! I'm in. But this is from Hebrews?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Interesting that this was the cause of the fall, and it is also interesting that this portion in Timothy is about the woman's salvation.

3 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?... 6 But one hath somewhere testified, saying,

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
Thou crownedst him with glory and honor,
And didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet.

Prior to Jesus becoming Lord of All He was first made a little lower than the angels.

Originally Posted by Nell

Is that a verse? Where?

Nell

Originally Posted by seeking1

... The cause of Eve's sin was her desire for authority...

Originally Posted by seeking1

The cause of Eve's sin was her desire for authority, her desire to have her eyes opened and be as the Most High. Sound familliar?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Scripture is fairly clear that only the woman was deceived. Adam was not deceived and ate the fruit knowing that it was a sin (1 Tim 2:14). Adam's sin was willful, and greater than the woman's - for this reason death came through Adam directly (Romans 5:12), not Eve.

Originally Posted by Nell

So, which is worse, willful sin or sinning because you were deceived? The serpent deceived the woman, but the man knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. Somehow not being deceived seems to be a “badge of honor” for a man, but that could only mean he acted willfully. How is that a good thing?

Originally Posted by Nell

So, which is worse, willful sin or sinning because you were deceived? The serpent deceived the woman, but the man knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. Somehow not being deceived seems to be a “badge of honor” for a man, but that could only mean he acted willfully. How is that a good thing?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

...Adam was created first and was not deceived..

Originally Posted by seeking1

For anyone that is interested, here is a video of a pastor answering the "Can women be pastors?" question. I have watched, probably 2 dozen videos on the subject but I really liked how this guy (who I had never heard of) laid it out.

https://youtu.be/3oOnPVunV8I

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's a novel twist on the Scripture. I don't think Paul told the husbands to honor their wives because their ego needs it. The context is about bestowing honor on the weaker parts not the stronger. Sometimes you come up with strange interpretations and honoring men's egos is not the most obvious and logical interpretation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the new creation there is also no marriage. What does this mean for your theory that male elders must be married? You can't pick and choose which parts of the New Creation you want to follow. A church which follows the New Creation idea should have no male or female distinctions, and also no marriage or children either. Until then, the Old Creation is still very much with us.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think you understood my view. I think that Paul bestowed more abundant honor on the brothers because their ego needs it.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Unfortunately for that position you are combining the Old creation with the New Creation. In the New Creation there is no male or female.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is some overlap in our interpretations. I don't see a major issue if the woman is considered (honorary) elders as long as the woman is in subjection to her (real) elder husband, as the Scripture says. I do not see a strong case for equal male-female eldership or women-only elders. The language in the original Greek or in our English translations does not allow for it.

The reason why Paul bestowed more honor on the sisters is because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). It is because they are the weaker vessel that they are suited for being elders to the weaker women (young women) but not to the men and women (the whole church).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is another point which I believe makes the egalitarian viewpoint highly unlikely and it is that menstruation was a taboo topic in many cultures including Judaism and early Christianity which prevented women from leadership in various church rituals due to ritual impurity. This would have ruled out a young woman being considered for church leadership:

Ezekial 18:6 he....neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Interesting take. I have a different view, but definitely, your interpretation fits neatly into mine.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ... 23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked;

So I would ask you a few simple questions.

1. In the church, which are our comely members, the brothers or the sisters? (Hint -- anyone who is married knows there is only one right answer).

2. On which members has Paul bestowed more abundant honor, the brothers or sisters?

3. Which members have no need? (This is a little tougher to understand but as your earlier post about how brothers refuse to go to churches that seem "too feminine" suggests, one of these requires their ego to be stroked and for one there is no need).

4. Which members are "lacking" in the church -- brothers or sisters?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Notice the part about being in subjection to their husbands. This means if the husband is an elder his aged wife who could be considered an 'elder' to the women in their care are not qualified to lead a church. The elder woman teaches the younger women to be in subjection as she herself is. The egalitarian view of equality is wrong. This rules out both a single aged elder female leading a church and also a married female whether she is an elder to the younger women or not.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Something to consider:

3 that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; 4 that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed:

I think the use of "aged" women and "train" in this translation (ASV) is due to the reticence to use the term "elder" and "teach".

Still, Paul is charging these aged women to teach or train the younger women.

So my question is this. Paul gives explicit criteria for selecting elders, deacons and even widows who are to be enrolled in church care. Where does he give the criteria for selecting these elder women who are to train others if it is not the same section in Timothy where he explains how to select elders?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are misinterpretating the passage. This well known evangelical apologetics site explains why and provides scriptural basis:

https://www.gotquestions.org/women-elders.html

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you disagree with the scriptural qualifications for an elder, yet use these same scriptural qualifications to claim that women cannot have church leadership roles.

Can you please let me know what "scriptural basis" you have to say that women cannot have church leadership roles?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Must an elder also have a plurality of children? 1 tim 3.4. This cannot be the intended meaning. The meaning is that the elder must have good character and not a string of divorced and remarriages. I disagree with your interpretation also because celibacy was highly valued in early church leadership. If being married was a requirement we dont see it practiced.

Its true that there are more verses supporting the drinking of wine than female elders. Also...Jesus drank alcohol but never appointed a female disciple.

Originally Posted by seeking1

Hello Awareness,
I am a man, by the way. This is a good write up regarding the complementarian view on woman pastors if you are interested:
https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...become-pastors.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is absurd. Paul said an elder needed to be "the husband of one wife". That means, if you select an elder according to the scripture you will get both a brother and a sister. Everyone with any experience in the church at all knows that the wife of an elder is a "church leader".

Originally Posted by seeking1

...Regarding the definitions, I would not agree on those definitions. May I ask where you found them? ...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The scripture is more permissive of a good home brew than female church leaders.

Originally Posted by HERn

I love the body of Christ. I have a Nazarene friend who is OK with women pastors, but would never touch an adult beverage; and several reformed friends that brew their own, but could never accept a woman elder or pastor.

Originally Posted by awareness

My bad. Sorry seeking1. I guess I should hold any questions until I give you the chance to reveal your position in its entirety.

Sorry again brother, or sister (I don't know yet). Consider me just an idiot.

Happy Good Friday ... if you celebrate it.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by seeking1

So, one example of what I think is "maneuvering" can be found in this excerpt from the Junia Project, (the full article can be found here: https://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/ )

Originally Posted by Nell

Seeking1,

What kind of theological "maneuvering"?

Can we agree on these definitions?

Christian egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level), also known as biblical equality, is a Christian form of egalitarianism. It holds that all human persons are created equally in God's sight—equal in fundamental worth and moral status. This view does not just apply to gender, but to religion, skin colour and any other differences between individuals. It does not imply that all have equal skills, abilities, interests, or physiological or genetic traits. Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.

Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,[1] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. The word "complementary" and its cognates are currently used[2] to denote this view. For some Christians whose complementarian view is biblically-prescribed, these separate roles preclude women from specific functions of ministry within the community.[3][4] Though women may be precluded from certain roles and ministries they are held to be equal in moral value and of equal status. The phrase used to describe this is 'Ontologically equal, Functionally different'.[5]

Complementarians assign primary headship roles to men and support roles to women—based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages. One of the precepts of complementarianism is that while women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches subscribing to this view.

Nell

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your view matches that of top theologians in the field such as Daniel B. Wallace who states that it requires exegetical gymnastics to arrive at an egalitarian conclusion.

He has written extensively about this such as here:

https://bible.org/article/some-refle...agmatic-issues

What is interesting about him is that personally he is egalitarian but professionally as an expert in NT Greek, he is complementarian and does not believe that the bible supports an egalitarian position.

Originally Posted by seeking1

So, I do realize that the local church was kind of hard on sisters, depending on the locality, it was harder for some sisters than others. However this is just something that I have really been wrestling with lately. Regarding women pastors my thoughts have always been along the lines of "I don't think that it's biblical but, meh, who cares". However, since I've been attending a church that has two women pastors (the lead pastor is a male) I have noticed that it seems like most of the activity in the congregation is dominated by women. So, after digging into it a little further, seeing what the Word says and reading various papers that support both viewpoints it really seems like it takes some theological "maneuvering", to support the position of women pastors. I would love to hear some of your thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi seeking1,

I do not believe the pastoral system is according to the Scriptures. Therefore, anything that I would add would be irrelevant to your question.

Drake