Transition to a more *liberal* church??

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

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

Post by Sudsy »

Hats Off wrote:
Valerie wrote: So WHO has the Spirit of the Lord, to go against Scripture teaching on the subject and say that it no longer applies?
Modern Mennonite and other up-to-date church leaders.
We all will answer to God for His gifts and calling on our lives and it would be risky for a woman to bury her gift or let anyone else bury it based on interpreting whether a text is timeless in application.
It might be just as dangerous for a woman to ignore scripture to take on a role not intended for her.
And when our works go through the test of fire, we will find out, won't we ? When I say 'risky' I am referring to awards not risking salvation. Imo, many of us ignore certain scriptures when it doesn't suit what we are told to believe and this includes the most 'conservative' amongst us. For instance, when water baptism is clearly speaking of immersion and then Paul explains how it is symbolic through that mode, some of the most conservative ignore those scriptures. It is not just 'Modern Mennonites' that can be challenged on cherry picking where they will obey, imo.

Any suggesting that any area of disobedience could forfeit one's salvation I don't see in scripture. Turning our back on the Gospel that saves us is the only thing risking our salvation. We don't have to live in fear as we sort out how best to serve the Lord and none of us has the inside on the truth on every subject. I believe God looks more upon the heart and our motives in serving Him than He does on how correct we are on secondary subject applications.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

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

Post by Sudsy »

KingdomBuilder wrote:I don't think it's ever "risky" to follow the simple Word.
Seems much more risky when someone undertakes a hyper-individualized Christianity in which their personal "convictions" and feelings take precedent over Biblical principles. We know what kind of churches embrace this mentality and we know their fruits that often follow.
I believe these women may be called to mission work, evangelism, etc... But not to be a minister.
As I mentioned above, immersion, for instance, is for many believing it to be 'the simple Word'. Others don't view it as that simple. Foot washing another. And being obedient to be a personal evangelist another. Etc, etc. Does the biblical principle involve the original literal application in all cases or not ?

And we can believe whatever we think scripture is saying about women being a 'minister' but when we ignore how God is using some ministering women to further His Kingdom, in my mind, we are sticking our heads in the sand. I choose to go with what I believe God is doing by pouring out His Spirit as He said He would - "And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy".
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

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

Post by lesterb »

Sudsy wrote:
KingdomBuilder wrote:I don't think it's ever "risky" to follow the simple Word.
Seems much more risky when someone undertakes a hyper-individualized Christianity in which their personal "convictions" and feelings take precedent over Biblical principles. We know what kind of churches embrace this mentality and we know their fruits that often follow.
I believe these women may be called to mission work, evangelism, etc... But not to be a minister.
As I mentioned above, immersion, for instance, is for many believing it to be 'the simple Word'. Others don't view it as that simple. Foot washing another. And being obedient to be a personal evangelist another. Etc, etc. Does the biblical principle involve the original literal application in all cases or not ?

And we can believe whatever we think scripture is saying about women being a 'minister' but when we ignore how God is using some ministering women to further His Kingdom, in my mind, we are sticking our heads in the sand. I choose to go with what I believe God is doing by pouring out His Spirit as He said He would - "And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy".
You can't just go by results. As in this passage...

[bible]Matthew 7,21-23[/bible]
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

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

Post by Sudsy »

lesterb wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
KingdomBuilder wrote:I don't think it's ever "risky" to follow the simple Word.
Seems much more risky when someone undertakes a hyper-individualized Christianity in which their personal "convictions" and feelings take precedent over Biblical principles. We know what kind of churches embrace this mentality and we know their fruits that often follow.
I believe these women may be called to mission work, evangelism, etc... But not to be a minister.
As I mentioned above, immersion, for instance, is for many believing it to be 'the simple Word'. Others don't view it as that simple. Foot washing another. And being obedient to be a personal evangelist another. Etc, etc. Does the biblical principle involve the original literal application in all cases or not ?

And we can believe whatever we think scripture is saying about women being a 'minister' but when we ignore how God is using some ministering women to further His Kingdom, in my mind, we are sticking our heads in the sand. I choose to go with what I believe God is doing by pouring out His Spirit as He said He would - "And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy".
You can't just go by results. As in this passage...

[bible]Matthew 7,21-23[/bible]
My view of this text is that those saying they did this or that and therefore qualified to enter the Kingdom had never really accepted Jesus and established a personal relationship with Him. As Jesus put it, He never knew them. I believe there are those who may act very religiously and may appear to be models of obedience and yet they know in their hearts that they never had a relationship with Jesus. In the end, they are still relying on their religious acts to save them.

Also, speaking of results, do we know that these things that they said they did actually occured ? I believe there are false prophets and healers today who are letting on supernatural things are happening from their ministry that really are not and if the supernatural occurs, it could have nothing to do with them.

Personally, when it comes to God using men and women to further His Kingdom in any area of ministry He chooses to, I follow more of what this Assemblies of God article says. I can't accept that all women preachers and pastors throughout the world are all in this category of never knowing the Lord. I think our MB Anabaptist church is following this view more than one restricting women's roles in serving the Lord - https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/The ... n-Ministry

What I experienced by our lady pastor and observed as her fruit coming from the true Vine was she had a very close relationship with the Lord and lead many to that kind of relationship.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

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

Post by cmbl »

Jesus continues by saying, "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man...Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man..."

What are "these words?" The Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 7 does nothing to suggest that the workers of lawlessness had not performed the miracles they cited. Also absent is any mention of "personal relationship" or "accepting Jesus." Those concepts enter through eisegesis, reading something into the text.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
Neto
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

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

Post by Neto »

Sudsy wrote:... our lady pastor ... had a very close relationship with the Lord and lead many to that kind of relationship.
The Lord uses imperfect vessels to carry out His work of salvation in the lives of people they seek to reach for Him. I could start listing my own faults & failures during our time among the Banawa Indians in Brazil, or I could give God the glory for being used in spite of my imperfections, and yes, sometimes sinful attitudes, to bring many of the people to himself. I ended up learning a lot from THEM, and although they could have, they never once chided me for my failures. (I was aware enough of them myself.)
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

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

Post by Sudsy »

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.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
steve-in-kville
Posts: 9515
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:36 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Affiliation: Hippie Anabaptist

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

Post by steve-in-kville »

Sudsy wrote: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.
My turn to throw fuel on the fire :mrgreen:

My wife and I had this exact conversation over the weekend... do people born and raised in a really conservative setting actually develop conviction?? Or do they just do what they are told "because that's the way it is?" Is it more a brain-washing and cult-like environment?

I'm at work... more on this later :D
0 x
I self-identify as a conspiracy theorist. My pronouns are told/you/so.

Owner/admin at https://milepost81.com/
For parents, railfans, and much more!
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

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

Post by Valerie »

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

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

Post by Sudsy »

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.

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 -

You may find other interesting challenges in the Twisted Scripture series. I like the one on Romans 9, the key support for Calvinism -

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 ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Post Reply