Transition to a more *liberal* church??

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
Valerie
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby Valerie » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:00 am

Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Sudsy wrote:I don't think we will settle the issue here that has been around for centuries regarding restrictions by gender on God furthering His Kingdom through His people. I think I have stated why allowing unrestricted WIML is not an issue for me when selecting a church and provided a link for scriptural support of that view. Others here seem to see this as a drift into worldly thinking and some appear to treat it as a sin unto death. For me, this issue and active gays in ministry are two very different situations. As a 'pro' moving to a more 'liberal' church I would say it may allow one to sooner develop personal convictions and to accept how others work out their salvation that is different from how I do it.


I am not sure Sudsy, how one could read Scripture about this issue with women as 'leaders' . Is it a coincidence, that the very morning I shared 1 Timothy 2 on this question with you- that while driving home for lunch, this very same question came up on Christian radio in my 7 minute drive? This former pastor- who does Bible Q & A on Moody Radio- received this question in those few minutes I was listening and he answered with the same exact passage of Scripture- BUT he went further than I did to emphasize

You can have a listen here: (I think you'd enjoy this Bible Q & A)
https://www.moodyradio.org/programs/ope ... open-line/
The caller brings up the exact question you do- was it a 'cultural' thing back then?
This question is brought up at the end of the hour of Q & A

SO- lets look at the passage again:

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The pastor brings up not only was the 'woman' deceived but the order of creation is in place- these 2 aspects are timeless.
So what do we have? The Church's 2000 year history, where a woman was never a pastor- until 'lately'- this does not deny that women have gifts, but they are suseptable to deception- AND their role as 'authoratative'- these do not change with time- and as others have brought up, these denominations that have allowed it, are now going astray in other Biblical areas-
I certainly agree with this- I wouldn't attend a Church with a female pastor because she is already questioning, like Eve did, "Hath God indeed said"? the serpent deceived Eve in this manner, which is why Apostle Paul brings this up-when we question Apostolic doctrine about this issue, we are doing the same thing Eve did- 'questioning if God really said this'- Well, yes He did, as Apostle Paul spoke by the Holy Spirit-

Your 2nd point about the same people who teach against female pastors teach to baptize by pouring which you see as disobedience-because Baptism is by immersion-
I read recently a question by an Orthodox Christian who asked if he should be baptized 'again' because the first time, he was not 'immersed' but the water was poured on him.
As strongly as the Orthodox teach about immersion being the true 'way' of baptizing since the beginning- they have made allowances for pouring- as Boot brought up- the first century Didache allows for pouring when immersion isn't convenient- the replies to this Orthodox Christian questioning his own pouring baptism was that DEFINITELY his baptism was valid because it was 'in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit', and even as strict as the ORthodox is about baptism- they will allow pouring and does not nullify one's baptism- it is valid, and not disobedient according to the 2000 history of the Church. Not the preferable way, but also not discounted.


Thankyou for the link and I listened to that explanation. I still disagree and go with the explanation by this Anabaptist preacher that imo, ties in best with other scriptures on what men and women can do. If you want to zero in on the explanation on verses 13 and 14 start about the 34 minute point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDHm7uplV6w

Regarding water baptism, regardless of what the Orthodox have made allowance for in pouring, explain to me how this pouring allowance symbolizes what Paul said about dying to sin and being resurrected to new life as only immersion symbolizes. Looks to me like they were trying to accommodate another method for some reason way back then. Things like running cold water and pre-baptismal fasting also got added to what we read in scripture. When things outside scripture (the oral tradition or the didache) do not correspond to what we read happened in scripture, I believe many of us see these as add ons by man. Personally I view other modes of baptism as disobedience as it is always referred to in scripture as the word used- 'immersion'. Will God accept that form of baptism ? Imo, yes, because it is an initial action that if it has intentions of saying we have been born again and we are identifying ourselves as a new Christ follower, then that is what is most important even though it loses it's picturesque way of this happening. I don't agree that there should be a tie to local church membership. They were not 'joining a local church' in the NT through immersion but they were saying they were now part of 'The Church' of Christ. This, too, imo, was an add on link outside scripture. Should a new believer join other believers in a local church ? Yes, as a new babe in Christ will naturally do that to find spiritual food and fellowship. Well, I'm wandering off topic here.

Anyway, if the previous link is not preferred as it does have a lady preacher in it, here was an earlier explanation about how gender is not a NC issue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYiVjTwOWt8

You may find other interesting challenges in the Twisted Scripture series. I like the one on Romans 9, the key support for Calvinism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmIf4WIWs0

Imo, there are various traditional beliefs that need a closer look. As not being the primary audience just what is timeless for us and what is not ?


Sudsy, this is so easy to conclude as false teaching & false doctrine- there is no way it could be considered an Anabaptist Church- that's the first error here-
Secondly, I listened to this entire message- it is easy to detect so much error in this. I hope that a man of God on this forum would take the time with you to go through each and every statement in this teaching to show you wear this is false teaching- clearly, it is a case of 'mixing the truth with a lie'- this is satan's best weapon- both Boyd & Nikole are doing this!
This is false teaching on many levels and no- we are not 'new agers' embracing my truth is ok and your truth is ok- there is absolute truth on the matter-
Listening to both of them, although they may love the Lord, I feel they are both clearly deceived- could never embrace any more teaching by either one- they hope the scales fall off of 'others' eyes- I would tend to hope the same for them-
They have both been influenced by false teachers themselves, have bought the lie. Mixing the truth w/lies is also timesless and this is a perfect example about not rightly dividing the Word of Truth- please reconsider letting Boyd being an influence in your life-

For me 'personally', the fact that Saturday morning I shared 1 Timothy 2 with you- and in a very rare case of me going home for lunch, the pastor on Moody radio had the EXACT same question and answer in my 7 min drive to work 3 hours later- was confirmation to me, (I RARELY go home for lunch but did Saturday and caught this in that short drive! I confess I thought it was then to share with you Sudsy, but perhaps just confirmation to me, plus the history of the 2000 year church supports it) although this matter has been settled in me throughout my life in Christ- there's never been a question in my heart & mind that women are to have pastoral roles- if a woman feels 'called' to a pastoral role, she, like Eve, proves what Paul said- women can be deceived, and lead men, (like Adam) down the path of deception with them- on this-

Again, I hope that one of the men can go over all that is said here line by line, statement by statement, why this is false teaching-

Another thing- most Godly women I know who have the Holy Spirit, do not feel held 'captive' to not be pastors-
This 48 min of teaching upsets me very much-

So I listened to another of his messages, as so many denominations have split over both issues- women pastors, and the gay issue:
https://youtu.be/ySkB30rf5Ao

Convinced me even more why these kind of teachers are the false teachers that Jesus & the Apostles warned of in the Last Days.
0 x

Sudsy
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Location: Leamington, Ontario
Affiliation: Mennonite Brethren

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby Sudsy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:04 pm

Valerie wrote:
Sudsy, this is so easy to conclude as false teaching & false doctrine- there is no way it could be considered an Anabaptist Church- that's the first error here-
Secondly, I listened to this entire message- it is easy to detect so much error in this. I hope that a man of God on this forum would take the time with you to go through each and every statement in this teaching to show you wear this is false teaching- clearly, it is a case of 'mixing the truth with a lie'- this is satan's best weapon- both Boyd & Nikole are doing this!
This is false teaching on many levels and no- we are not 'new agers' embracing my truth is ok and your truth is ok- there is absolute truth on the matter-
Listening to both of them, although they may love the Lord, I feel they are both clearly deceived- could never embrace any more teaching by either one- they hope the scales fall off of 'others' eyes- I would tend to hope the same for them-
They have both been influenced by false teachers themselves, have bought the lie. Mixing the truth w/lies is also timesless and this is a perfect example about not rightly dividing the Word of Truth- please reconsider letting Boyd being an influence in your life-

For me 'personally', the fact that Saturday morning I shared 1 Timothy 2 with you- and in a very rare case of me going home for lunch, the pastor on Moody radio had the EXACT same question and answer in my 7 min drive to work 3 hours later- was confirmation to me, (I RARELY go home for lunch but did Saturday and caught this in that short drive! I confess I thought it was then to share with you Sudsy, but perhaps just confirmation to me, plus the history of the 2000 year church supports it) although this matter has been settled in me throughout my life in Christ- there's never been a question in my heart & mind that women are to have pastoral roles- if a woman feels 'called' to a pastoral role, she, like Eve, proves what Paul said- women can be deceived, and lead men, (like Adam) down the path of deception with them- on this-

Again, I hope that one of the men can go over all that is said here line by line, statement by statement, why this is false teaching-

Another thing- most Godly women I know who have the Holy Spirit, do not feel held 'captive' to not be pastors-
This 48 min of teaching upsets me very much-

So I listened to another of his messages, as so many denominations have split over both issues- women pastors, and the gay issue:
https://youtu.be/ySkB30rf5Ao

Convinced me even more why these kind of teachers are the false teachers that Jesus & the Apostles warned of in the Last Days.


As I said I choose to believe that there are teachings that have been twisted from their original intent and this could very well be one of them. There are just too many real life facts relating to women in ministry and how God has used them for me to ignore other scriptures that reflect women in any role that God gifts them and calls them to do. My parents were saved and discipled under a woman pastor and others can believe whatever they want but i'm sticking with God using men and women as He sees fit to further His Kingdom.

I realize Greg Boyd and Bruxy Cavey are suspect in certain Anabaptist groups as they are quite modern in their of relating to this generation and they challenge certain traditions. But the view of both women and men being both gifted and used by God in ministry is thought to be a correct view by many. Some here appreciate the ministry of N.T. Wright so I will provide a link on how he views this topic. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwj287xr0uQ

And more on this for those who enjoy N.T. Wright - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeab ... ral-roles/

I accept that you have settled in your mind about things like the veiling and WIML but haven't we all at one time been quite convinced we were right on something ? You have expressed to us the changes in your thinking on various areas in your faith journey. And perhaps in a few years, Lord willing, my faith journey will take me into some different views on secondary subjects. I don't need to convince others or evangelize others on these views but I can share other ways of interpreting them.

The false teachings that concern me most are about salvation itself. Whether a woman is a pastor or not is not a salvation issue in how I read scripture. Our MB Anabaptist church has just opened the door to more women in all ministries of the church except lead pastor (and some day I think we will get there). This has nothing to do with 'women's lib' but much to do with a restoration of men and women prior to the fall and what it will be like when we get to heaven. In worship we get a taste of that when both men and women are operating in the gifts God has given them.

Regarding 'so much error', I think you are preaching and correcting me. :P I haven't arrived yet at the point of knowing exactly how to divide the Word of Truth and imo, you haven't either. We are on a faith journey sorting things out. Someday we will discover just how screwed up we were.
0 x

User avatar
lesterb
Posts: 689
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby lesterb » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:57 pm

One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.
3 x
When a man's ways please the LORD, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. (Pro 16:7 ESV)

User avatar
steve-in-kville
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:36 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Affiliation: Brethren at heart!

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby steve-in-kville » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:26 pm

IBTL!! ;)
0 x
Regards - steve

Sudsy
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Location: Leamington, Ontario
Affiliation: Mennonite Brethren

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby Sudsy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:29 pm

lesterb wrote:One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.


For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?
0 x

Sudsy
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Location: Leamington, Ontario
Affiliation: Mennonite Brethren

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby Sudsy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:20 pm

Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.


For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?


Obviously there are many scriptures that should not be taken alone out of context as they would appear to say something they don't. I can think of many examples. I doubt any of us come to a text without some of our own ideas influencing the interpretation. That is why we need revelation.

However, if we are getting this revelation on truth, why do we not end up with the same truth ? Something doesn't add up. I have to then concede we now see through a glass darkly and either one has the truth on a subject and the rest are in error or we all now 'know in part'. Pride will cause us to not accept that.
0 x

Valerie
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby Valerie » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:14 am

Sudsy wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.


For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?


Obviously there are many scriptures that should not be taken alone out of context as they would appear to say something they don't. I can think of many examples. I doubt any of us come to a text without some of our own ideas influencing the interpretation. That is why we need revelation.

However, if we are getting this revelation on truth, why do we not end up with the same truth ? Something doesn't add up. I have to then concede we now see through a glass darkly and either one has the truth on a subject and the rest are in error or we all now 'know in part'. Pride will cause us to not accept that.


Can't we take comfort in the fact that the Scripture were interpreted long ago for us? We don't need to wrangle about them- read the early Church Father's interpretations- it's not like the Apostles were teaching and writing things down, that they didn't know what they meant- and their hearers were in the dark about it-
You mention pride Sudsy, but isn't it prideful for people to come along in the last century as if 'they' are the ones God has been waiting for to bring new revelations about things like we've been discussing instead of what was interpreted and meant long ago?

Even that passage: 1 Corinthians 13:12 is not referring to interpreting Scriptures- there may be misunderstandings and misinterpretations in these days we live because once the Reformation happened, people were reinterpreting all over the place, that which was interpreted- and it continues to spread heretical interpretations- the first 1000 years of Christianity, heresy could be dealt with much easier- as heretics would spring up- the Church continued to conted for the faith- and this is where schisms would occur- and many writings of the early church were 'against heresies'- this is where we gain more information, but now it's seemingly impossible to address these heresies because they spring in so quickly and draw crowds- for example, in the message of Boyd's I watched, he had an actual altar car for women who, after listening to the influence of himself and the young lady, NOW want set free from this bondage of their God ordained role, to be able to be pastor's.
Why cannot women accept with Joy (as many do!) that there are God given gifts and ministries they CAN and HAVE been used in, without having to be the 'head' of the church? That is getting things out of the Order- that God created- as Apostle Paul taught, first Adam, then Eve, 1 Cor 11
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

That ORDER, has been since BEFORE the Fall- what we are dealing with since the Fall, was because Eve, was out of order- and Adam followed her-

1 Corinthians 13:12King James Version (KJV) - this passage is not about interpreting Scripture, that is not what Apostle Paul was talking about here-

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

For me, (actually we) we have left these 'new revelation' churches because we have found much of it false, and hear more strange things all the time- regarding this OP, if we were left to this type of Church as Boyd's, and that influence, we would abstain from going to Church- the Church has always had place for those who must leave and be on their own, in certain situations-our direction has been the opposite-
Jeremiah 6:16
King James Version
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Maybe not the 'popular' direction, but- we are finding more rest for our souls- it's not about pride, it's about accepting that these new things, were prophesied about in the Last Days- and we are seeing it unfold.
0 x

Josh
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby Josh » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:10 am

It's hard to take the entire chapter of 1 Co. 11 "out of context".
0 x

RZehr
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Location: Culver, Oregon
Affiliation: Western Fellowship

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby RZehr » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:40 am

Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.


For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?


Taking the Bible at face value and taking it literally is not the same thing.

I believe that to take it at face value is to do ones best to gain a full understanding of the passage in context and not twist it support my life style of choice. And generally take the simple, least complicated interpretation as correct, perhaps a bit like Occam's razor. I'd call this a "simple" interpretation of the scriptures.

To take the Bible literally, then you pluck out your eye if it offends you, and you believe that there is a woman in heaven that is wearing the sun.

I think this distinction of literal understanding vs. simple understanding has been lost on many of us conservative people, and it may be that some of us think that being conservative is being literal. Which has caused us to get off track with end times prophesies and the Israel-Palestine conflict etc. After all, if we are the conservatives and there are evangelicals that take all of Revelations literally, then we certainly can't be less "literal"=(conservative) than those guys!
4 x

Sudsy
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Location: Leamington, Ontario
Affiliation: Mennonite Brethren

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Postby Sudsy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:00 pm

Valerie wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?


Obviously there are many scriptures that should not be taken alone out of context as they would appear to say something they don't. I can think of many examples. I doubt any of us come to a text without some of our own ideas influencing the interpretation. That is why we need revelation.

However, if we are getting this revelation on truth, why do we not end up with the same truth ? Something doesn't add up. I have to then concede we now see through a glass darkly and either one has the truth on a subject and the rest are in error or we all now 'know in part'. Pride will cause us to not accept that.


Can't we take comfort in the fact that the Scripture were interpreted long ago for us? We don't need to wrangle about them- read the early Church Father's interpretations- it's not like the Apostles were teaching and writing things down, that they didn't know what they meant- and their hearers were in the dark about it-

No, I don't find this comfort you speak of and millions of other Christians don't also. You can chose to believe they did and chose to follow their interpretations but for me, men such as Augustine had some messed up theology. And I'm not about to trust the beliefs passed down by the Popes. That is why Protestanism and Anabaptism and the Reformation broke away from these passed down interpretations.

You mention pride Sudsy, but isn't it prideful for people to come along in the last century as if 'they' are the ones God has been waiting for to bring new revelations about things like we've been discussing instead of what was interpreted and meant long ago?

I think the Jews thought the same thing about Jesus. How dare He interpret the scriptures differently than what they had believed all those years. So, they finally killed Him.

Even that passage: 1 Corinthians 13:12 is not referring to interpreting Scriptures- there may be misunderstandings and misinterpretations in these days we live because once the Reformation happened, people were reinterpreting all over the place, that which was interpreted- and it continues to spread heretical interpretations- the first 1000 years of Christianity, heresy could be dealt with much easier- as heretics would spring up- the Church continued to conted for the faith- and this is where schisms would occur- and many writings of the early church were 'against heresies'- this is where we gain more information,

Yes, heresy was dealt with and often by killing anyone with a different view than the one passed down. I don't call that approach very Christ like. Look at what was done to many Anabaptists because they interpreted baptism was only for people who could make their own choice to follow Christ. At least today, in our culture, we can freely express alternate possible interpretations without risking our lives.

but now it's seemingly impossible to address these heresies because they spring in so quickly and draw crowds- for example, in the message of Boyd's I watched, he had an actual altar car for women who, after listening to the influence of himself and the young lady, NOW want set free from this bondage of their God ordained role, to be able to be pastor's.
Why cannot women accept with Joy (as many do!) that there are God given gifts and ministries they CAN and HAVE been used in, without having to be the 'head' of the church?

Because some feel called to church leadership roles as the pastor I grew up listening to. What Greg and others are saying is that Pentecost opened up ministry to both men and women as has been read in the gifts they were given so what Paul was saying in this text must have a different meaning than to restrict women to minister. Women are not second class citizens in God's Kingdom. Those of us who believe that and have seen that in operation encourage women to not allow this tradional way of viewing this to hinder the work God is giving them.

That is getting things out of the Order- that God created- as Apostle Paul taught, first Adam, then Eve, 1 Cor 11
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

That ORDER, has been since BEFORE the Fall- what we are dealing with since the Fall, was because Eve, was out of order- and Adam followed her-

1 Corinthians 13:12King James Version (KJV) - this passage is not about interpreting Scripture, that is not what Apostle Paul was talking about here-

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

For me, (actually we) we have left these 'new revelation' churches because we have found much of it false, and hear more strange things all the time- regarding this OP, if we were left to this type of Church as Boyd's, and that influence, we would abstain from going to Church- the Church has always had place for those who must leave and be on their own, in certain situations-our direction has been the opposite-

And yet you attend a church that has various beliefs that differ from the Orthodox beliefs. Personally I'm glad to hear you are under Alistair Begg's preaching. If I lived close to Cleveland I would likely attend that church also.It may help you with your next step in your faith journey. There is no 'true church' as a denomination and much to consider from the various interpretations and application of scripture.
Jeremiah 6:16
King James Version
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Maybe not the 'popular' direction, but- we are finding more rest for our souls- it's not about pride, it's about accepting that these new things, were prophesied about in the Last Days- and we are seeing it unfold.

I think your preaching again. ;) Just kidding you cause I don' mind your preaching/teaching/sharing anytime as it gives me your perspective on things from your faith journey.

I remember a few years back when I first came to our MB church and I was very hungry for bible study. I was not aware that some women might feel uncomfortable with me joining their mid week bible study. Not sure how I would have responded at that time if they kicked me out over not teaching a man. But I joined in as gender didn't even cross my mind and learned just how in depth these women were in studying the scriptures. Was quite a blessing.

Well, my teaching pastor and I both enjoy Boyd and Cavey and I'm looking forward to our next coffee as our teacher gets into a new series on Spiritual Warfare. I'm currently reading Boyd's book called God At War. Good read !

0 x


Return to “Other”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest