More guided or less guided ?

[Sudsy]

No and you know that isn't what was meant.

I know it is not what is meant but to practise the scriptures literally, I still say, this would be required. It is an argument that all scripture cannot be taken literally as some might suggest and some believe they do.

Which text is this again that we are out of compliance with if we don't own slaves?

There is none as such. I'm having trouble making my point. I'll try again.

If scripture tells slaves and slave owners how to conduct themselves as Christians and we take the scriptures literally to be applied then we would have to go somewhere where slavery still exists to apply those scriptures. That was all I was trying to say regarding literal practise. Some instructions have a meaning behind them that does not require a literal application. Thats all.

[ken_sylvania]

I know it is not what is meant but to practise the scriptures literally, I still say, this would be required. It is an argument that all scripture cannot be taken literally as some might suggest and some believe they do.

Which text is this again that we are out of compliance with if we don't own slaves?

There is none as such. I'm having trouble making my point. I'll try again.

If scripture tells slaves and slave owners how to conduct themselves as Christians and we take the scriptures literally to be applied then we would have to go somewhere where slavery still exists to apply those scriptures. That was all I was trying to say regarding literal practise. Some instructions have a meaning behind them that does not require a literal application. Thats all.

What scripture exactly are you referring to? You keep referring to this thing - can't you give us chapter and verse so we can read what you're talking about?

[Soloist]

God is locked in by His own words and I believe them to be true. God said "I change not". Show me from Scripture a defense of women preaching the gospel without a man. Otherwise its your own views being superimposed as the Spirit speaking to you.

Yes, God said "I change not" yet throughout the scriptures it says that God changed His ways to best suit His purposes. We are not talking about God changing. Show me a scripture where women cannot preach the gospel without a man. Many women serve in the foreign mission field as pastors without any man. Should this just be ignored ? I chose not to ignore it or think my view of what God will or will not do is locked up by what we read in the books selected to be our Bibles.

Okay, how about this Sudsy, I'll start a new thread and we can fairly look at each passage of the New Testament covering women. Lets use the Scripture to prove or disprove the premise that women teach without men. I think this should be illuminating yes? Would you actually participate?

Does it bother you that God is still furthering His Kingdom through ministries that do not believe as you do regarding the headcovering ? I would think if this is such a big issue as some make it that God would intervene more to get this corrected but it does not appear to be the case. I know in my previous MB church, it was a non-issue but if some felt it was important to them, they could wear whatever covering they desired.

I'm more concerned about women teaching men or excising authority over a man. I clearly disagree with your view on covering but about woman's authority and yourself what do you have to say in response to this? Seems to be crafted specifically for you.

1 Cor 14: 33b-36 As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

I don't think hair is an issue, short or long in our culture. In the MB church, the younger men sometimes wore ball caps with logos on them in church. I'm mostly bald but due to my culture background I take off a hat at various occasions as a traditional sign of respect. Even ungodly folks take off their hats for public prayer and the national anthem being sung.

And why do you remove your hat? Where did this "traditional" sign of respect come from?

2 Peter 2: 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

What Commandment is Peter speaking of here?

I don't want to drift off here anymore than we have to respond. We are getting far off the OP.

I disagree, the guidance of the Holy Spirit works through Scripture and the Spirit will never disagree with itself.

2 Peter 3: 1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Authority is claimed here by the apostles. The teachings of the Apostles is Scripture and is for all time.

2 Peter 3 15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1 John 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

How do you interpret this? Certainly seems to be saying that those who keep the commandments of Jesus will have the Spirit abiding within.

This can be a separate study if you wish make one up.

Would you respond to it? This is all very related to the Holy Spirit's guidance.

[Sudsy]

Which text is this again that we are out of compliance with if we don't own slaves?

There is none as such. I'm having trouble making my point. I'll try again.

If scripture tells slaves and slave owners how to conduct themselves as Christians and we take the scriptures literally to be applied then we would have to go somewhere where slavery still exists to apply those scriptures. That was all I was trying to say regarding literal practise. Some instructions have a meaning behind them that does not require a literal application. Thats all.

What scripture exactly are you referring to? You keep referring to this thing - can't you give us chapter and verse so we can read what you're talking about?

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

These are instructions to slaves and slave owners. One cannot obey these instructions without being a slave or a slave owner. Therefore to literally obey these texts one would need be a slave or a slave owner. Point being that there are scriptures that we can apply literally and ones we should not in our culture/setting. In the early years of the slave system in North America some Christians used scriptures in a literal way to support their belief that Jesus condoned the slave system.

Most today would disagree that Jesus condoned that system but in our culture He would say something similar to employer/employee relationships and to follow the instructions in that way. The fact remains we do not need to be a slave owner or a slave as they were in that era. The teachings of Jesus need not all be taken as literal practise for all time but rather obeyed on what Jesus was teaching about.

Well, that is all I can come up with on this example on why not everything in scripture can be taken as a literal practise. And going back to the issue of 'moderism' , in the case of the abolition of slavery, this break from the past I believe was a good thing and one Jesus would support. I believe this applies to other things also that we, here, disagree on, such as the role of women in the church in today's world, whether foot washing still holds water , the head covering, etc, etc. Those who take a more literal practise from the NT as best to follow differ from the practise of those who don't. Whether they are living 'more holy' or not, that is something God knows. These differences often get labelled in Anabaptism with the 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels.

Anyway, hope you are having a blessed Sunday. It is close to a perfect, sun shining day here in the deep south of Ontario, Canada. Good day for a ride through the country.

[Soloist]

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

These are instructions to slaves and slave owners. One cannot obey these instructions without being a slave or a slave owner. Therefore to literally obey these texts one would need be a slave or a slave owner. Point being that there are scriptures that we can apply literally and ones we should not in our culture/setting. In the early years of the slave system in North America some Christians used scriptures in a literal way to support their belief that Jesus condoned the slave system.

Most today would disagree that Jesus condoned that system but in our culture He would say something similar to employer/employee relationships and to follow the instructions in that way. The fact remains we do not need to be a slave owner or a slave as they were in that era. The teachings of Jesus need not all be taken as literal practise for all time but rather obeyed on what Jesus was teaching about.

Well, that is all I can come up with on this example on why not everything in scripture can be taken as a literal practise. And going back to the issue of 'moderism' , in the case of the abolition of slavery, this break from the past I believe was a good thing and one Jesus would support. I believe this applies to other things also that we, here, disagree on, such as the role of women in the church in today's world, whether foot washing still holds water , the head covering, etc, etc. Those who take a more literal practise from the NT as best to follow differ from the practise of those who don't. Whether they are living 'more holy' or not, that is something God knows. These differences often get labelled in Anabaptism with the 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels.

Anyway, hope you are having a blessed Sunday. It is close to a perfect, sun shining day here in the deep south of Ontario, Canada. Good day for a ride through the country.

That's just as ridiculous as saying everyone needs to be men or needs to be women. Some Scripture is for women, some Scripture is for men, some Scripture is for slaves, and some Scripture is for church leaders. We can accept this without saying the Scripture can't be taken literally. To use this as an argument to disprove literalism is pretty weak. One generally uses other extreme statements like cutting the hand off or something like that but not an argument like this.
That being said, Paul called himself a slave of Christ and if you wish to take that statement for slaves literally, then its perfectly reasonable to be that way to our Master.

[Sudsy]

God is locked in by His own words and I believe them to be true. God said "I change not". Show me from Scripture a defense of women preaching the gospel without a man. Otherwise its your own views being superimposed as the Spirit speaking to you.

Yes, God said "I change not" yet throughout the scriptures it says that God changed His ways to best suit His purposes. We are not talking about God changing. Show me a scripture where women cannot preach the gospel without a man. Many women serve in the foreign mission field as pastors without any man. Should this just be ignored ? I chose not to ignore it or think my view of what God will or will not do is locked up by what we read in the books selected to be our Bibles.

Okay, how about this Sudsy, I'll start a new thread and we can fairly look at each passage of the New Testament covering women. Lets use the Scripture to prove or disprove the premise that women teach without men. I think this should be illuminating yes? Would you actually participate?

No, I have been through all these scriptural arguments before. I believe that God is not bound forever by everything He gave the NT writers to write to specific groups in that era and speaks to us by His Spirit in the way that we should go in today's world. You and I don't regard the use of the scriptures the same, it would seem. God continues to further His Kingdom and it is quite obvious to me that He uses both men and women in all kinds of ministry to do so. I have first hand experience of a church with a lead woman pastor that was a great bible teacher and one who lead many unsaved to Christ, my entire family being some. To debate what restrictions in the NT that you believe exist for women against what I observed through many years will not change my mind. I observed how God is not 'locked in' by our interpretations of the NT.

Does it bother you that God is still furthering His Kingdom through ministries that do not believe as you do regarding the headcovering ? I would think if this is such a big issue as some make it that God would intervene more to get this corrected but it does not appear to be the case. I know in my previous MB church, it was a non-issue but if some felt it was important to them, they could wear whatever covering they desired.

I'm more concerned about women teaching men or excising authority over a man. I clearly disagree with your view on covering but about woman's authority and yourself what do you have to say in response to this? Seems to be crafted specifically for you.

1 Cor 14: 33b-36 As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

I say that this was exactly what was needed in that time and place. Paul was led by the Lord to give them these instructions. As long as you view everything in the NT as literally applicable for all Christians for all time, you will believe as you do. It makes sense to me why these instructions were right for this time in history of the church. Back in those days they didn't need women 'rocking the boat', so to speak, while the church was busy growing the Kingdom. They would teach the women at home and not upset the culture with women taking leading roles. However, our culture today does not have those views of authority over men and is more of an egalitarian environment. God is using both men and women to grow His Kingdom and teach others regardless of their sex.

I don't think hair is an issue, short or long in our culture. In the MB church, the younger men sometimes wore ball caps with logos on them in church. I'm mostly bald but due to my culture background I take off a hat at various occasions as a traditional sign of respect. Even ungodly folks take off their hats for public prayer and the national anthem being sung.

And why do you remove your hat? Where did this "traditional" sign of respect come from?

I don't know. I wasn't there when it first begun.

2 Peter 2: 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

What Commandment is Peter speaking of here?

I don't want to drift off here anymore than we have to respond. We are getting far off the OP.

I disagree, the guidance of the Holy Spirit works through Scripture and the Spirit will never disagree with itself.

The Holy Spirit does guide through scripture but also in many other ways. It isn't that the Spirit disagrees with Himself (not itself) but our understandings can be messed up about what He is saying in the scriptures.

2 Peter 3: 1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Authority is claimed here by the apostles. The teachings of the Apostles is Scripture and is for all time.

That is your interpretation but this verse says nothing about 'for all time' if you mean everything as written is literally applicable today.

2 Peter 3 15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1 John 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

How do you interpret this? Certainly seems to be saying that those who keep the commandments of Jesus will have the Spirit abiding within.

Back up a verse to see what this command is - " And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."

This can be a separate study if you wish make one up.

Would you respond to it? This is all very related to the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Yes, I likely will as I would rather talk about spiritual things than the things going on in this old world.

[Sudsy]

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

These are instructions to slaves and slave owners. One cannot obey these instructions without being a slave or a slave owner. Therefore to literally obey these texts one would need be a slave or a slave owner. Point being that there are scriptures that we can apply literally and ones we should not in our culture/setting. In the early years of the slave system in North America some Christians used scriptures in a literal way to support their belief that Jesus condoned the slave system.

Most today would disagree that Jesus condoned that system but in our culture He would say something similar to employer/employee relationships and to follow the instructions in that way. The fact remains we do not need to be a slave owner or a slave as they were in that era. The teachings of Jesus need not all be taken as literal practise for all time but rather obeyed on what Jesus was teaching about.

Well, that is all I can come up with on this example on why not everything in scripture can be taken as a literal practise. And going back to the issue of 'moderism' , in the case of the abolition of slavery, this break from the past I believe was a good thing and one Jesus would support. I believe this applies to other things also that we, here, disagree on, such as the role of women in the church in today's world, whether foot washing still holds water , the head covering, etc, etc. Those who take a more literal practise from the NT as best to follow differ from the practise of those who don't. Whether they are living 'more holy' or not, that is something God knows. These differences often get labelled in Anabaptism with the 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels.

Anyway, hope you are having a blessed Sunday. It is close to a perfect, sun shining day here in the deep south of Ontario, Canada. Good day for a ride through the country.

That's just as ridiculous as saying everyone needs to be men or needs to be women. Some Scripture is for women, some Scripture is for men, some Scripture is for slaves, and some Scripture is for church leaders. We can accept this without saying the Scripture can't be taken literally. To use this as an argument to disprove literalism is pretty weak. One generally uses other extreme statements like cutting the hand off or something like that but not an argument like this.

Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I thought we were having a reasonable conversation regarding how we see things but if you are going to call my thoughts 'ridiculous', then the conversation is over.

That being said, Paul called himself a slave of Christ and if you wish to take that statement for slaves literally, then its perfectly reasonable to be that way to our Master.

[Soloist]

Yes, God said "I change not" yet throughout the scriptures it says that God changed His ways to best suit His purposes. We are not talking about God changing. Show me a scripture where women cannot preach the gospel without a man. Many women serve in the foreign mission field as pastors without any man. Should this just be ignored ? I chose not to ignore it or think my view of what God will or will not do is locked up by what we read in the books selected to be our Bibles.

Okay, how about this Sudsy, I'll start a new thread and we can fairly look at each passage of the New Testament covering women. Lets use the Scripture to prove or disprove the premise that women teach without men. I think this should be illuminating yes? Would you actually participate?

No, I have been through all these scriptural arguments before. I believe that God is not bound forever by everything He gave the NT writers to write to specific groups in that era and speaks to us by His Spirit in the way that we should go in today's world. You and I don't regard the use of the scriptures the same, it would seem. God continues to further His Kingdom and it is quite obvious to me that He uses both men and women in all kinds of ministry to do so. I have first hand experience of a church with a lead woman pastor that was a great bible teacher and one who lead many unsaved to Christ, my entire family being some. To debate what restrictions in the NT that you believe exist for women against what I observed through many years will not change my mind. I observed how God is not 'locked in' by our interpretations of the NT.

So, if you have already gone through all these Scriptural arguments, decided they don't apply, why challenge me to produce Scripture you already disputed? You have already decided based on personal experience that it doesn't apply to the modern world.

I say that this was exactly what was needed in that time and place. Paul was led by the Lord to give them these instructions. As long as you view everything in the NT as literally applicable for all Christians for all time, you will believe as you do. It makes sense to me why these instructions were right for this time in history of the church. Back in those days they didn't need women 'rocking the boat', so to speak, while the church was busy growing the Kingdom. They would teach the women at home and not upset the culture with women taking leading roles. However, our culture today does not have those views of authority over men and is more of an egalitarian environment. God is using both men and women to grow His Kingdom and teach others regardless of their sex.

What if the Holy Spirit was only for this time as well and isn't needed today? How do you actually know it is the Spirit of God within you?

And why do you remove your hat? Where did this "traditional" sign of respect come from?

I don't know. I wasn't there when it first begun.

Well I would point you to the history of the military with the use of the cover and also point you to the history of the woman's covering and postulate both in the recent modern times (early 1900s) this was purely based on the Scripture

The military removes the cover when they go in doors as a holdover from a cultural application of the head covering. You will get chewed out in a chapel or a hospital for wearing a ball cap or military covering. Up until the 1900's almost all women covered. The Scripture teaches to not be covered (as a man) when praying or prophesying

Yes, I likely will as I would rather talk about spiritual things than the things going on in this old world.

You are welcome to start a discussion but I see little spiritual gain from it. We have no agreement on foundational things, you represent a view of Scripture that is a modern innovation and is not based on the actual text. You haven't produced a single text to support your argument and it can be restated as "This is true because I have seen X or Z".

[Sudsy]

You are welcome to start a discussion but I see little spiritual gain from it. We have no agreement on foundational things, you represent a view of Scripture that is a modern innovation and is not based on the actual text. You haven't produced a single text to support your argument and it can be restated as "This is true because I have seen X or Z".

As I noted in the OP -

It seems to me that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth and that since we now have all kinds of written versions of the Bible to study in the hands of most every Christian, that the understandings of Christian truth and practise is more varied today than it has ever been in the NT era.

I think we are proven this statement to be true, at least between the two of us. I am not afraid to look at actual text considering the conditions and situations of when it was written and to whom and what is still applicable today. What we each consider as 'foundational things' obviously differs.

As for Spirit guidance, I questioned if our bibles, that believers did not have a copy for themselves for most of the Christian era, has made us more Spirit guided than those who came before the time when Christians had their own personal bibles.

I still question why if we have the same Spirit of God living in us to guide us into all truth, that we still cannot agree on what the Spirit is saying. I think we agree that this is not any fault of the Spirit, so it has to be us. Perhaps the Spirit has been quenched at how Christians have used the scriptures and we have shut Him out of our learnings.

One of my opinions is that we listen to man more than we do the Spirit. Not to say the Spirit does not use man when He choses to but rather we tend to acknowledge man and his reasonings on scripture and other guidance more than we do the direct guidance of the Spirit.

The Spirit is given us as a guide, a comforter, for boldness to witness, understanding of truth, spiritual gifts for ministry and other things we need. Scripture says to earnestly desire spiritual gifts and explains some of these. Are we doing that ? In most churches I have been in, including Anabaptists, this is an area basically considered to be just for the early church or they could be for us but don't eagerly desire them. Now here is an example of not taking the text as applicable today, what I have been accused of. Me thinks we cherry pick.

Gal 5:25 - "Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives."

Hopefully, we can have more input here on what I initially wanted to discuss.

[ken_sylvania]

There is none as such. I'm having trouble making my point. I'll try again.

If scripture tells slaves and slave owners how to conduct themselves as Christians and we take the scriptures literally to be applied then we would have to go somewhere where slavery still exists to apply those scriptures. That was all I was trying to say regarding literal practise. Some instructions have a meaning behind them that does not require a literal application. Thats all.

What scripture exactly are you referring to? You keep referring to this thing - can't you give us chapter and verse so we can read what you're talking about?

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

These are instructions to slaves and slave owners. One cannot obey these instructions without being a slave or a slave owner. Therefore to literally obey these texts one would need be a slave or a slave owner. Point being that there are scriptures that we can apply literally and ones we should not in our culture/setting. In the early years of the slave system in North America some Christians used scriptures in a literal way to support their belief that Jesus condoned the slave system.

Most today would disagree that Jesus condoned that system but in our culture He would say something similar to employer/employee relationships and to follow the instructions in that way. The fact remains we do not need to be a slave owner or a slave as they were in that era. The teachings of Jesus need not all be taken as literal practise for all time but rather obeyed on what Jesus was teaching about.

Well, that is all I can come up with on this example on why not everything in scripture can be taken as a literal practise. And going back to the issue of 'moderism' , in the case of the abolition of slavery, this break from the past I believe was a good thing and one Jesus would support. I believe this applies to other things also that we, here, disagree on, such as the role of women in the church in today's world, whether foot washing still holds water , the head covering, etc, etc. Those who take a more literal practise from the NT as best to follow differ from the practise of those who don't. Whether they are living 'more holy' or not, that is something God knows. These differences often get labelled in Anabaptism with the 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels.

Anyway, hope you are having a blessed Sunday. It is close to a perfect, sun shining day here in the deep south of Ontario, Canada. Good day for a ride through the country.

These texts regarding master/slave relationships, if taken literally, say specifically that these are instructions to be followed when you are in a certain situation. These are good examples of Biblical instruction for people in specific circumstances, where the text literally says that this is the case. Just as there are certain instructions for men, certain instructions for women, certain instructions for fathers and certain instructions for mothers. We are obeying the literal meaning of these instructions when we do what is instructed for us. So when men are instructed to pray with bare heads and with their lifted hands being holy, men should literally be praying with bare heads and lifting holy hands. When women are instructed to cover their heads when praying, they ought to literally be doing just that. The theory that we all ought to be obeying instructions specifically directed at a different segment of the population is not obedience to the literal meaning of the words.