Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Evangelical · 08-24-2017, 06:00 AM

I sort of agree with Nell about the heart of the matter not being the heart of the matter. But I think UntoHim wanted to change the course of this discussion and make what he quoted of me the "heart of the matter", so happy to go with that.

But we should keep in mind that the parts UntoHim has quoted of my first post, was only part of a more complete genuine reply to QOSTA which UntoHim decided to break off to create a new thread.

So for that reason I think my post needs to be read in perspective and context that it was in reply to QOSTA who made some claims about the local churches such as women not being able to hold positions of power in their own right. Well I am thinking she does not have much experience or knowledge of the local church as , as UntoHim attested to, the local churches do not have "positions of power" as such, but a plurality of elders.

I think on this topic it doesn't really matter anyway whether one believes in RC-style leadership or brethren style leadership - whether women can't be priests in a Cathedral or women can't be elders in a house church is based upon the same fundamental passages of Scripture, and tradition (in the case of RC, Orthodox etc).

But then UntoHim said I am talking about leadership in a "different manner" and " you are speaking of leadership in a different manner than Witness Lee taught" and not picking up on the fact that multiple posters, including Ohio and Nell and the person I was replying to was talking about leadership in a "different manner" to what Witness Lee taught. But as I said before, I don't think it matters to the topic at hand on women's role.

Nell was even stressing the WHATEVER in the verse:
God told Abraham to do WHATEVER his wife tells him.

indicating Nell believes women should have the upper hand in the relationship and do whatever the woman says, contravening God's laws of headship and order and Paul's commands, when Paul says women should be in ALL subjection (1 Tim 2:11).

How can one verse say to the man to do WHATEVER his wife tells him and at the same time the woman is in ALL subjection?

So naturally I proceeded to show how God intended man to be the head of the woman and not the other way around and also not as "two heads".

Then ZNP brought a different perspective to the discussion. ZNP's balanced perspective of women holding power through marriage to the elder/leader has merit although I disagree with him that single or childless men cannot be elders because that would rule out Paul who was single and even Jesus himself who was single and childless. It does not seem to be a plain reading of the text and even "go to" evangelical websites like gotquestions.org disagrees with his view.

With Janes book I assessed it on its merit and not for the fact she is a woman. (In another thread I also assessed Hon's book based upon the information available to me and he is a man). I can't see how exactly Jane's book is helping men when it's basically centered around the same old Christian feminist ideals as Bushnell held - it even throws in some of her inventive twists on the Garden of Eden story which some members of this forum are not comfortable with.

Now supposedly the English versions of the bible are wrong as Jane/Bushnell/Nell and others say. [This view might be cast down pretty quickly on other forums just for the simple fact that some Christians, (usually fundamentalist evangelical) strongly believe in God's ability to preserve His Word even through translation after translation after translation. ]

Unlike them, I believe they do have translation errors, but I think it's rather convenient that all the translation errors happen to line up with key passages that destroy the feminist arguments. For the feminist argument to work, all the ducks have to in a row, all of the verses in question must be "incorrect translations". In reality however, only some or few may possibly be mistranslated or misconstrued. Sure, some verses in Hebrew may be inaccurately translated. But Paul's words in the Greek are fairly plain, at least for modern Greek NT scholars.

If the original Greek is the "true version" of the bible and our English translations are wrong, a logical thing to do would be to consult some Greek experts to see if it is really so. So I consulted bible.org and D. Wallace, and found there's little correlation between Wallace's view and Bushnell/Janes view in terms of the original Greek translations. Bushnell/Jane does not seem to have the backing of leading modern Greek NT scholars like Wallace and his colleagues, as one might expect if translation errors were so ubiquitous.

I think it's really just another attempt by Satan to destroy marriages and families by inverting God's original intention, as my bible says, women are more easily deceived (1 Tim 2:14), so Eve/ Bushnell/Jane/Nell are the more easily deceived ones, and men who follow them are like Adam eating the fruit of knowledge once again. That's why I'd bet on what Wallace says more than what Bushnell says, and the fact that God is a man, Jesus is a man, the angels are all male,the 12 disciples are all male. "Gender bias" is not a sin, it's biblical, and all the notions of "equality" and such are from the modern world and society not from the bible, though they try their hardest to make the bible agree with them, citing "mistranslated passages" at whim.

08-24-2017, 06:00 AM	#230
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Women's Role I sort of agree with Nell about the heart of the matter not being the heart of the matter. But I think UntoHim wanted to change the course of this discussion and make what he quoted of me the "heart of the matter", so happy to go with that. But we should keep in mind that the parts UntoHim has quoted of my first post, was only part of a more complete genuine reply to QOSTA which UntoHim decided to break off to create a new thread. So for that reason I think my post needs to be read in perspective and context that it was in reply to QOSTA who made some claims about the local churches such as women not being able to hold positions of power in their own right. Well I am thinking she does not have much experience or knowledge of the local church as , as UntoHim attested to, the local churches do not have "positions of power" as such, but a plurality of elders. I think on this topic it doesn't really matter anyway whether one believes in RC-style leadership or brethren style leadership - whether women can't be priests in a Cathedral or women can't be elders in a house church is based upon the same fundamental passages of Scripture, and tradition (in the case of RC, Orthodox etc). But then UntoHim said I am talking about leadership in a "different manner" and " you are speaking of leadership in a different manner than Witness Lee taught" and not picking up on the fact that multiple posters, including Ohio and Nell and the person I was replying to was talking about leadership in a "different manner" to what Witness Lee taught. But as I said before, I don't think it matters to the topic at hand on women's role. Nell was even stressing the WHATEVER in the verse: God told Abraham to do WHATEVER his wife tells him. indicating Nell believes women should have the upper hand in the relationship and do whatever the woman says, contravening God's laws of headship and order and Paul's commands, when Paul says women should be in ALL subjection (1 Tim 2:11). How can one verse say to the man to do WHATEVER his wife tells him and at the same time the woman is in ALL subjection? So naturally I proceeded to show how God intended man to be the head of the woman and not the other way around and also not as "two heads". Then ZNP brought a different perspective to the discussion. ZNP's balanced perspective of women holding power through marriage to the elder/leader has merit although I disagree with him that single or childless men cannot be elders because that would rule out Paul who was single and even Jesus himself who was single and childless. It does not seem to be a plain reading of the text and even "go to" evangelical websites like gotquestions.org disagrees with his view. With Janes book I assessed it on its merit and not for the fact she is a woman. (In another thread I also assessed Hon's book based upon the information available to me and he is a man). I can't see how exactly Jane's book is helping men when it's basically centered around the same old Christian feminist ideals as Bushnell held - it even throws in some of her inventive twists on the Garden of Eden story which some members of this forum are not comfortable with. Now supposedly the English versions of the bible are wrong as Jane/Bushnell/Nell and others say. [This view might be cast down pretty quickly on other forums just for the simple fact that some Christians, (usually fundamentalist evangelical) strongly believe in God's ability to preserve His Word even through translation after translation after translation. ] Unlike them, I believe they do have translation errors, but I think it's rather convenient that all the translation errors happen to line up with key passages that destroy the feminist arguments. For the feminist argument to work, all the ducks have to in a row, all of the verses in question must be "incorrect translations". In reality however, only some or few may possibly be mistranslated or misconstrued. Sure, some verses in Hebrew may be inaccurately translated. But Paul's words in the Greek are fairly plain, at least for modern Greek NT scholars. If the original Greek is the "true version" of the bible and our English translations are wrong, a logical thing to do would be to consult some Greek experts to see if it is really so. So I consulted bible.org and D. Wallace, and found there's little correlation between Wallace's view and Bushnell/Janes view in terms of the original Greek translations. Bushnell/Jane does not seem to have the backing of leading modern Greek NT scholars like Wallace and his colleagues, as one might expect if translation errors were so ubiquitous. I think it's really just another attempt by Satan to destroy marriages and families by inverting God's original intention, as my bible says, women are more easily deceived (1 Tim 2:14), so Eve/ Bushnell/Jane/Nell are the more easily deceived ones, and men who follow them are like Adam eating the fruit of knowledge once again. That's why I'd bet on what Wallace says more than what Bushnell says, and the fact that God is a man, Jesus is a man, the angels are all male,the 12 disciples are all male. "Gender bias" is not a sin, it's biblical, and all the notions of "equality" and such are from the modern world and society not from the bible, though they try their hardest to make the bible agree with them, citing "mistranslated passages" at whim.