Holdeman Transitions ?

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Josh wrote:I am fully in favour of women teaching, preaching, prophesying, being messengers, and sharing the good news.

I do think, however, that the Bible lays out requirements for an elder and a deacon on purpose. And it's also clear Paul does not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man, including in teaching.
And here is a view that considers that what Paul said about women was about women in that day being uneducated and could be mislead by false teachers. In other words Paul was addressing specific circumstances in Ephesus
Wow. You are here trying to explain away the scripture, rather than trying to be led by it's meaning. You do realize that is EXACTLY the same technique that the pro LGBT groups use to explain away Romans 1? If you take this approach, you can make the scriptures mean anything you like.

I am actually saving some of this stuff, in the unlikely chance I ever teach Hermeneutics again, I will be using this stuff as examples of what not to do. This is actually priceless. We call this "saying without citing" in other words, you do not have a shread of evidence, Biblical or otherwise to prove this true, yet you use this as if it is just as valid as taking the plain meaning of the passage. This ends up with doctrine built on conjecture rather then truth. Are you sure you want to go down this path?

J.M.
Had a busy day but getting back to your response.

Wow ! ;) You do realize that your response is priceless by those who do not want to look at culture and immediate audience when they interpret scripture application. :)

Firstly, I am not saying these are my views. And those with this view would agree that the plain meaning is a plain meaning. But taking the culture and the educational level if women in those days, they just do not think it applies the same today. And you may not agree but history does prove that men in those days had a huge advantage in being educated.

I would rather go on my experience in relationship to women in teaching roles. As I said before, I was raised under a woman pastor. Wonderful bible teacher. She led many to Christ and taught them how to live the Christian life. Many of them became pastors and teachers. So, one can believe whatever they want about whether or not God views their teaching as usurping authority over a man, because my very own father was trained by this woman to also teach and lead others to Christ. If God does think women teaching men are going against His way, it would seem to me, that inspite of that, God is using them as means to further His Kingdom.

Are you sure you want to go down a path that locks God into your understanding and application of those scriptures ? Some in Anabaptism are not going to turn a blind eye to what God is doing in and through women today and are easing up on their 'taking authority over men' views. God never changes but many times through scripture He alters His ways for His purposes.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Sudsy wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
And here is a view that considers that what Paul said about women was about women in that day being uneducated and could be mislead by false teachers. In other words Paul was addressing specific circumstances in Ephesus
Wow. You are here trying to explain away the scripture, rather than trying to be led by it's meaning. You do realize that is EXACTLY the same technique that the pro LGBT groups use to explain away Romans 1? If you take this approach, you can make the scriptures mean anything you like.

I am actually saving some of this stuff, in the unlikely chance I ever teach Hermeneutics again, I will be using this stuff as examples of what not to do. This is actually priceless. We call this "saying without citing" in other words, you do not have a shread of evidence, Biblical or otherwise to prove this true, yet you use this as if it is just as valid as taking the plain meaning of the passage. This ends up with doctrine built on conjecture rather then truth. Are you sure you want to go down this path?

J.M.
Had a busy day but getting back to your response.

Wow ! ;) You do realize that your response is priceless by those who do not want to look at culture and immediate audience when they interpret scripture application. :)

Firstly, I am not saying these are my views. And those with this view would agree that the plain meaning is a plain meaning. But taking the culture and the educational level if women in those days, they just do not think it applies the same today. And you may not agree but history does prove that men in those days had a huge advantage in being educated.

I would rather go on my experience in relationship to women in teaching roles. As I said before, I was raised under a woman pastor. Wonderful bible teacher. She led many to Christ and taught them how to live the Christian life. Many of them became pastors and teachers. So, one can believe whatever they want about whether or not God views their teaching as usurping authority over a man, because my very own father was trained by this woman to also teach and lead others to Christ. If God does think women teaching men are going against His way, it would seem to me, that inspite of that, God is using them as means to further His Kingdom.

Are you sure you want to go down a path that locks God into your understanding and application of those scriptures ? Some in Anabaptism are not going to turn a blind eye to what God is doing in and through women today and are easing up on their 'taking authority over men' views. God never changes but many times through scripture He alters His ways for His purposes.
No, but the scriptures are settled forever in heaven. Seriously, you are free to believe whatever you like. Just realize that with your method of interpretation what you already believe, the Bible will made to fit what you believe, not the other way around.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

Judas Maccabeus wrote: No, but the scriptures are settled forever in heaven. Seriously, you are free to believe whatever you like. Just realize that with your method of interpretation what you already believe, the Bible will made to fit what you believe, not the other way around.

J.M.
Imo, we are not talking about the truth of God's Word. Yes, the Word of God is settled forever in heaven. What is not settled is our application of the Word as written. Very few Christians believe that, for instance, 'Matthew 10 is a prototype for modern missions' as the other thread asks. If taken literally as applicable to all Christians for all time than all of us come miserably short of being a Christ follower. But was it true for the 12 empowered to take the Gospel to the Jews with signs and miracles ? Absolutely.

And look at water baptism and all the issues around our application there. Although the word means to immerse, some decide that regardless they will pour or sprinkle, even Anabaptists. Some say if is for believers only who are old enough to believe, others say it can be applied to children also. Some say there needs to be some 'proving period' that one has first been born again. The book of Acts quite plainly shoots that one down. We just are not going to get our application down to where we all agree in various areas, let alone doctrine (does water baptism have regenerating properties ?; is it just symbolic ?; is it entry into the local church ?).

And yes, we can apply scriptures to fit what is comfortable for our way to be Christ followers. I don't disagree with that. But just as some apply in a more freedom way, others chose to apply it in a more restrictive way. Freedom can lead to worldliness and a more restrictive way can lead to legalism. Both are slippery slopes in application, are they not ? I think God knows our struggles to figure things out and in my observations, He is an understanding Father who will build His Kingdom using us imperfect beings as His means anyway. We don't seem to give each other the same amount of grace to be His children with differing ways to serving Him. In some areas we do (i.e. mode of baptism) in others we don't (i.e. non-violence).

OK, I'm all done rambling on. Someday, we will all be together singing and worshipping around the throne of God and these things will no longer divide us. Not only will be free from the very presence of sin but we will be free from all this judging of each other in how we follow Christ. What a day that will be !
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:My experience with cults is that they wear normal assimilated clothing, other than a few bizarre things the leaders wanted simply because they could get away with controlling specific details of people's lives. I believe Bootstrap's experience was similar.
Actually, no. We were pretty easy to spot. Women covered their heads at all times, and wore skirts or dresses. We wore simple clothes, often second hand clothing shared by other community members, which was kept in a room in the community's offices. Trendy clothing or expensive clothing was discouraged, but men generally wore suits to church. There was quite a bit of teaching about clothing, and wearing the wrong clothing would be seen as rebellion.

I haven't read the rest of this thread, I found this searching for something else, but I thought I would correct this one thing.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
francis
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:16 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation:

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by francis »

Sorry if I'm derailing, but I was watching a clip from this movie and one of the women (Micah?) said that she had never had another woman pray for her, that only men had done that. I've never come across this in churches I've attended. Some only let men offer devotionals, but there's no rule against women praying for others. Is this correct?
0 x
francis
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:16 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation:

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by francis »

I know I'm late to this thread, but I finally watched this movie. It had some really good points in it (one true church etc.) but it turned into a commercial for the foursquare church all these former Holdemans ended up attending. Made it a lot weaker imo.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Josh »

francis wrote:I know I'm late to this thread, but I finally watched this movie. It had some really good points in it (one true church etc.) but it turned into a commercial for the foursquare church all these former Holdemans ended up attending. Made it a lot weaker imo.
The episode (2nd?) with the woman being “free in Christ” to abandon her head coverings, complete with a video of her tossing them in the rubbish, was especially telling.

It is also flatly false that Holdemans do not believe in justification by faith. I don’t know why evangelicals feel so entitled to lob this accusation at any plain Anabaptist group. This year’s revival preaching at my church spent 3 nights on the importance of the orthodox position of justification by faith alone and penal substitutionary atonement.
0 x
Post Reply