| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/05/2012 8:20:32 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 02/14/2012 4:00:49 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled. And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.(I Samuel 28:5-7)
I have no problem believing that God sovereignly granted revival in the 1960′s -70′s, renewing faith in the reality of Jesus, introducing church people to Jesus for the first time, and baptizing multitudes from all walks of life, and over the spectrum of denominations in the Holy Ghost. The movement became known as the Charismatic renewal.
Why not? Didn’t He promise us that …
… it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:(Acts 2:17-18)
I myself came to Christ at the end of the 1970′s, in a charismatic church. But the critical question of any movement is not one of the beginning, but of the end…how does it end?
Of course in one sense the Charismatic movement never ends, for it didn’t begin in the 1960′s nor at Azusa street, but in Jerusalem. It shall never end, being established by Jesus, clothed in the Holy Spirit and known as the church.
But the charismatic movement as a historical reality, that sovereign move of God of 40 years ago,which turned so many to Jesus and the Spirit in a godless day, has been co-opted by it’s “leaders” and seems to be going the way of King Saul.
Saul seriously disobeyed God at several key points in his life, doing what he “felt” was right, rather than adhering to the Word of God. He wouldn’t go by the Word, but by “feelings”. God called that rebellion and even “witchcraft”,
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.(I Samuel 15:22-23)
One of the problems with the Charismatic movement, was that it was beset with a variety of false teachers. Oral Roberts, with his seed faith, prosperity teaching. New Thought influenced teachers such as Kenneth Hagin and Copeland, who taught that we are all “little gods”, and could create our own reality by our words.
Who can forget the “deliverance movement” which was basically superstitious hysteria, but brought millions into bondage? How about the attempt by some to bring about order, imposing the cultic and oppressive “shepherding movement”?
False teaching imposes a terrible toll, it breaks down the defenses and corrupts the soul. Doctrine, good or bad, is not insignificant, it is of critical importance.
The Prophetic movement heralded by the false Kansas City Prophets and John Wimber, promoted experience over doctrine, and induced millions into “spiritual drunkenness” and gnostic mysticism.
These are just a sampling of the influences which flooded into the wake of millions of people coming to a living faith in Jesus and an awareness of the Holy Spirit. Like an accumulation of toxins in a body they have had an eroding effect on the church.
Time fails me to go into the other excesses such as the unbiblical ecumenism, the Toronto and Pensacola movements, neo apostles and prophets, and spiritual warfare.
The common theme of all of these excesses is that the charismatics have always been strongly urged not to judge! Discernment has been ridiculed and criticized! These things have taken a toll.
The charismatic movement is in danger of ending like Saul…
At the end of Saul’s life, he went into the occult. God wasn’t speaking to him anymore. Samuel was by now dead, although Saul consistently ignored him whilst alive. Saul had chased David away. killed the priests and found himself in real trouble.
And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
He who had once purged the land of witches and wizards, now sought out a witch, that he might commune with the now dead Samuel!
Benny Hinn is just one Charismatic leader who has testified of his own necromancy,(communication with the dead). He tells os his frequent visits to Kathryn Kuhlman’s tomb, to get an impartation of “her anointing”!
“One of the strangest experiences I had a few years ago [was] visiting Aimee’s tomb in California. This Thursday I’m on TBN. Friday I am gonna go and visit Kathryn Kuhlman’s tomb. It’s close by Aimee’s in Forest Lawn Cemetery. I’ve been there once already and every so often I like to go and pay my respects ‘cause this great woman of God has touched my life. And that grave, uh, where she’s buried is closed, they built walls around it. You can’t get in without a key and I’m one of the very few people who can get in. But I’ll never forget when I saw Aimee’s tomb. It’s incredibly dramatic. She was such a lady that her tomb has seven-foot angels bowing on each side of her tomb with a gold chain around it. As—as incredible as it is that someone would die with angels bowing on each side of her grave, I felt a terrific anointing when I was there. I actually, I—I, hear this, I trembled when I visited Aimee’s tomb. I was shaking all over. God’s power came all over me. … I believe the anointing has lingered over Aimee’s body. I know this may be shocking to you. … And I’m going to take David [Palmquist] and Kent [Mattox] and Sheryl [Palmquist] this week. They’re gonna come with me. You—you—you gonna feel the anointing at Aimee’s tomb. It’s incredible. And Kathryn’s. It’s amazing. I’ve heard of people healed when they visited that tomb. They were totally healed by God’s power. You say, ‘What a crazy thing.’ Brother, there’s things we’ll never understand. Are you all hearing me?”11Benny Hinn sermon, Double Portion Anointing, Part #3, Orlando Christian Center, Orlando, Fla., April 7, 1991. From the series, Holy Ghost Invasion. TV#309, tape on file.
Familiarity with the Word of God would deliver Hinn’s followers, for God says He hates the sin of necromancy. Isaiah tells us that those who seek anything from the dead have no light in them,
When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn(Isaiah 8:9-12)
The flavor of the day in Charismatic circles is Bethel church in Redding California, headed by a Word Faith, Prophetic movement, pastor , Bill Johnson. At His Bethel School of ministry, he teaches students to “honor the Generals of revival”, that is leaders such as Smith Wigglesworth, Aimee Semple Mcpherson, Evan Roberts, and others.
“Honoring” them to Johnson means compiling a vast collection of their books and artifacts,and opening a “generals library” for charismatics to visit. But like Hinn, Johnson also believes in visiting their tombs, and literally “soaking” the “anointing” by being in the presence of their graves.
Bethel Students “Soaking Anointing” Off of Tombs !
Those who discern are seeing countless other evidences that like Saul, the Charismatic movement has gone into the occult, for false prophecy, dream interpretation, necromancy,spiritual drunkenness are all characteristics, not of christian spirituality but “the delusion”, a revival of deceiving spirits that Paul warned about, as a consequence of rejection of the Word of God.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.( 2 Thess 2:8-12)
(yeah...tit for tat!
Do thus to My people and ye shall have no rain, but my people will have rain...Do such to my people and you shall have darkness upon your people,only My people shall have light as in the day when the Land of Goshen had light while darkness covered the face of Egypt.)
God offered the world the grace of Mount Zion, but instead the world has chosen the gloom of Mount Sinai and the testimony of Moses spoken against us! I am tearfully sad it has been coming to this. You think it was just on the outskirts of Jerusalem that Christ pined for his people...Nay! He would have taken this whole world into his arms, but this world just would not have it!
Well put.
Well and sadly put.
Freepmail coming.
couldn’t have said it better myself!
17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
Welllllllllll
Harumph.
Paul was OBVIOUSLY
talking about the
feminine SIDE of male prophets.
OBVIOUSLY God would not be STUPID enough to let WOMEN
prophecy!
/sarc
Welllllllllll
Harumph.
Paul was OBVIOUSLY
talking about the
women NOT prophecying IN CHURCH but instead prophecying on the back stoop to the dogs and goats.
/sarc
I don't know about the unknown truths part of the question. I don't believe that there are new doctrines being revealed or any thing like that.
I believe that the Holy Ghost can raise your alertness to be aware of situations where your God-guided judgment must be brought into play.
I don't disagree with this but I don't believe the spirit is limited to 'raising alertness' but can communicate in a variety of ways such as through the Word or dreams and visions. Ultimately it is the Bible that we must test everything against and we should keep our focus on Jesus and on His Word.
Thank you for sharing your views, dear Quix!
Thank you for sending me the understanding you propose! It looks like you are organizing your thoughts and verses to "correct" the explanation I posted, and "teach" me about this. But before you leap to conclusions I would beg you to hold off a bit, because there are a couple of considerations for you to mull over before you lock in your position.
If you permit, I would like to address your concerns, but right now it is late, I've been tired, and the reply will take a while to formulate. How about giving me 24 hours or so to deal with a few other pressing matters?
BTW, do you have a Strong's Concordance, and/or a Thayer's Lexicon, and/or a Vine's Expository Dictionary? These might help in a deeper examination of the Scriptures on this matter. And, have you had any military training? That would help, too.
With sincere respect --
Your response to my comment makes no sense.
That comment was in response to your implication that if people don’t do Christianity your way, that they don’t take their relationship with the Lord seriously enough and THAT’S what I was telling you you were so wrong about.
There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that I take more seriously but if you think that you can judge that based on outward appearances, you’ve got another thing coming.
And as far as thinking that I am *teaching* you something, I guess it’s pretty hard for those with spiritual pride to admit that they’re wrong about something and a woman was right. And I expected no less.
INDEED.
sigh.
IOW, no, the women are not permitted to speak at all inside the church ... (metmom)
You were here using "church" to describe the building constructed to house the assembly. This is not a NT useage of the word "church." You misapplied both the Scriptural conditions regarding silence, and attributing to me something about the application of the pertinent passages that I did not say. I believe your intent was to deliberately read into Scripture something that is not there. This is eisegesis. You are also attempting to trivialize the common sense of the passages by seeming to make their clear logical meaning illogical. You also seem to be trying to induce contempt for the clear explanation of The Holy Spirit's non-negotiable imperatives, so that the modernistic mindset may be advanced.
The behavior within the church house and outside the place and time of the conduct assemblage is not within view in this observation. Please do not bring in this extraneous and irrelevant issue to try to falsify the clear Scriptural commands being discussed.
Now, of the "assemblies" which I spoke, this would be the use of translation of "ekklesia" into "church" or "assembly" as referring to a formal association of believers organized to function as a localized body of The Christ. They have standards, both written and unwritten but commonly taught and understood, by which they operate. In particular, the clear command "Let your women keep silence in the churches:" is not a suggestion. Here, the word "ekklesiais" = "churches" = "assemblies" refers to the condition of the process whenever any assembly is congregated for the purpose of public worship and/or instruction. The term "keep silence" is the verb "sigaoh" which means to be still, or in verse 30, to hold one's peace.
If you think this only applies to women, think again. The context also demands that any man is also to keep silence, unless he is under permission to speak. In this ranking the woman is considered to be a subordinate at least to a "bishop," "elder," or "deacon" (Scripturally all to be spiritually mature men), and therefore, since they are to keep silence, so is she as a subordinate. Furthermore, if she has a husband, and he is present and whether he is silent or speaking, she is to demonstrate her Scriptural submission to his authority by her silence as his subordinate. "... for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but to be under obedience, as also saith The Law." Here, The Law is the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses -- the speaking as a contributor to the teaching/preaching in the assembly was not permitted then; it is, seamlessly and ubsurprisingly, not allowed now. To speak = "la-leh-oh" is, in this context, is to address the company assembled in its normal conduct as a part of the session (other than utterance for an emergency, for example). Most certainly there will be no womanly "glossolalia."
But regarding teaching or attempting to exercise authority over a/the man (as you are trying here, metmom), the passage from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 comes into play, most especially where the whole assembly is in session. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." Again, this is not a suggestion. There are no escape clauses. In the session of the assembly, with elders conducting teaching, and other men present, the role of women and men present, the conduct expected of subordinates is to learn with the respect of silence = "hesuchia" = quietness. This is "a tranquillity arising from within oneself, causing no disturbance to others" (Vine's). No whispering, no chattering, no fidgeting, no gum-chewing, no preening, no movements to attract attention -- these are indicators of self-control, which is one facet of spiritual maturity, especially as an example to children in attendance.
1 Cor. 14:35 continues to say "... for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Here, shame = "aischron" means "sinfully indecent," that which is opposed to modesty or purity. one deduces then that the group pretending to be "Christian," obeying the commands of The Christ and walking in His Ways (following Him), yet permitting, encouraging, yea demanding rampant control of feminism over the conduct of assembly sessions, demonstrates deliberate sinful indecency to itself, to the Christian community, to the onlooking angels, and to the cheering worldlings whose fundamental loyalty is to thir father, the god of this world.
Regarding the teaching of doctrine, or exercising authority over the believing man, this is not one of the many needed functions that The God has allotted for women to practice. In fact, when she tries, she begins to usurp, to take a role not given. When "a woman's work is never done," is this yet another responsibility she would want to take on? Especially that The God has disallowed? Moreover, in the function of the ekklesia? Think this one out. By requiring the men to fill this role under the authority of The Christ, both the rewards and the blame will fall on them. A woman attempting this will find only blame. At the "bema," that is. Of course, flat-out disobedience of these commands is not the best way to demonstrate much spiritual maturity or stature.
... and it sounds like singing is out, too. (metmom)
No, you miss out on this. When the time for the assembly to raise a vocal offering from the heart in remembrance, submission, thanks, and praise (Eph 5:19-21, Col. 3:16, Heb. 13:15) clearly the silence is momentarily broken for all, and participation is Scripturally expected. This is not a confusion of each one singing one's own song -- it is unity of word and voice by which we are all invited to admonish one another, from new-born baby Christians to spiritual fathers, through the form of psalms, hymns, spiritual songs sung in union.
Here's where the rubber meets the road: in your diatribe, what form of excuses are you trying to find to allow ignoring or rejecting compliance with God's instructions regarding the conduct of the ekklesia when summoned out and in session?
So those who don't do it your way are not spiritually mature and don't take their relationship with the Lord seriously? How legalistic. (metmom)
The above is not "my way" -- I didn't lay out the constitution, process, and program of the functioning of the ekklesia. If you don't like it, take it up with Him -- it's His Way, He wrote the manual. And yes, to reject His Plan may be not only spiritually immature, one may be playing by the rules of the oppositionally defiant side. Compliance with His commands is not legalism. It is playing by His rules, with a great dread of dismaying, disappointing, or disobeying Him by defeating His purposes. (Psalm 128:1)
I am not considering this as an opportunity to find fault or display any superiority, but as a chance for you to rethink and others to consider a greater fellowship with the Lord in His obedient service in and to the ekklesia, exercising growth in the fruit of the Spirit. With regard and unfeigned love for the brethren --
Believing these?
Of course. Over 40 years ago, at the age of 34.
Back then, I went through the "charismatic" stage. It did not seem to be very helpful toward understanding the mind of The Christ. Memorizing, engrafting, and meditating on His Word seemed to work better.
I believe in the whole Bible itself front to back, including the titles of the books, the inspired headings of Psalms, and its name for itself. I believe that it is authoritative, infallible, inerrant, sufficient, plenarily verbally inspired, perfectly preserved, and magnified in Heaven above all His Name. Regarding the passages you indicated, I believe in the meanings they convey when precisely translated into my language in a literal equivalence and interpreted by a hermeneutic employing literal and/or figurative-literal language, so that I may, as closely as possible, understand the sense that a person would understand at the time the Scripture was written.
Do you believe in the Bible as presented to you in this fashion?
If not, no reasonable dialogue is possible.
Some of the ideas and attitudes that your notes in this thread seem to project will probably not be in agreement with a fair exposition of the verses you suggested.
Can you explain the meaning of 1 Cor. 13:10?
Especially in identifying "that which is perfect"?
what sort of prissy group do you associate with?
I associate with independent, fundamental, Bible-believing, separated, immersionist assemblies, where the men are real men, the women are real women, and Jesus Christ is the Real Lord. One of those would be of the Plymouth-type brethren, from whom many highly-respected Bible scholars, authors, and missionaries have come. One such raised in that milieu is my discipler. He has translated the entire New Testament from the Koine, and has in print "The Gospels -- A Precise Translation." It is freely available, and especially valuable to the Bible student who does not have the advantage of a seminary training. It's just as useful, though, to one who does.
(Verbally abusing others isn't the best way to get disciples. At least, Jesus didn't seem to use it much.)
And, of course, I Cor 13 . . . 'that which is perfect' is come . . .
most likely refers to The Perfection of The Lord Jesus, Himself, and/or His coming Perfect Kingdom.
There is a lot to like about a lot of your presentation of yourself and your perspective.
However, a couple of things stick greatly in my craw when I read your stuff.
1. I have observed cessationism to be a doctrine of demons from the pit of hell. I find such blasphemous and grossly insulting toward Holy Spirit and The Father and Son Who sent Him. I tend to relate to it accordingly. I don't know how realistic it is to expect me to play nicey-nicy with that perspective, however polished its presentation.
2. There is, in spite of or in the midst of your carefully crafted sentences, an aura of smug prissiness about your assertions. A Biblical, brotherly Christian duty is to call such out to brothers who are in earnest about growing in The Lord. I'm from the Southwest where we tend to call a spade a spade without a lot of rabbit fur wrapping.
3. I'm 65 years old. I've been around these issues more times than many folks are years old. They are wearisome, tedious, and usually horribly futile when engaged in with an average cessationist.
4. Those with an authentic experience with Holy Spirit need never feel a micro-meter down from those with merely an argument.
5. These END TIMES are racing ever faster toward Armageddon. The cessationist contentions will soon be shown routinely in all authentic churches and a lot of other places to be worse than a stinking pile of corruption from hell.
6. I wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong side of such demonstrations by Holy Spirit.
7. Holy Spirit wrought miracles will be showing up satan's counterfeits in grand style more dramatic than the demonstrations at Moses' hand . . . and that day in and day out--probably for the whole of the Tribulation period and possibly during the latter part of the birth pangs leading up to it.
8. Enjoy your cessationist perspective as long as you can. It has a rapidly decreasing half-life. Then you'll have to deal with The Lord about why you didn't believe and teach what His Word AND HIS VOICE had to say on the matter.
*smug prissiness*???
They reek of blatant spiritual pride and outright condescension.
Anyone who passes judgment based on conformance to a certain set of standards which their assembly has decided indicates *spiritual maturity* is not spiritually mature at all. No more than those who don't *drink, dance, smoke, or chew and don't go out with girls who so* or the other extreme where if you don't speak in tongues and get slain in the Spirit, you're not spiritually mature.
God judges the heart, man judges by outward appearance.
Talking down to women and treating them as if they're stupid little children is not an indicator of any kind of maturity much less spiritual. All it indicates a men so insecure in their manhood, that they have to treat women as their property and control them.
The level of judgment passed using criteria which God has not approved (comparing themselves with themselves) is appalling and certainly an indicator of far less spiritual maturity than is indicated by whether a woman covers her head or dares to say anything in church.
Not only can I not imagine going to a church where women aren't allowed to speak, but to think that they can't even speak about spiritual matters there at all either......
After all, if we're going to hold strictly to Scripture, 1 Corinthians 14:35 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. must also be observed.
Time to break out the duct tape, eh?
I didn't get your line of reasonings, the supporting Scripture passages, or the explanation of the lack of agreement of "Christ" (masc.) and/or "Kingdom" (fem.) with "that" (neut.,pronoun) and "perfect" (neut., adjective) in the exegesis. Perhaps you could supply those missing factors?
Here is how my discipler has handled it:
http://www.happyheralds.org/THAT-WHICH-IS-PERFECT.html
Tell me how this explanation compares with your word study on this, OK?
As an aside, The Holy Ghost speaks to me directly every day, both from the pages of His Perfectly Completed Revelation, or from His words in my language that have been memorized. This perfectly completed (plenary, infallible) revelation was not available until about 100 AD, long after most of "them that heard" (Heb. 2:3,4) had passed into Glory.
The majestic radiant splendor of His Precious Word is beyond my still-human comprehension, but I kind of get the sense of some of it, as Saul did on the road to Damascus. Far beyond that of anything ever seen or heard in the "charismatic" entrapment experience of this day and age. When I meet Him face to face, He will keep on teaching me/us from it forever.
Have you ever been discipled? It's not too late to start ---
Yes, He does, and one's words give away what is in their heart. It is a precarious spot to be in if the words are not acceptable to Him. They certainly demonstrate what kind of heart one has:
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men (humans) shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mt. 12:36-37)
In this thread, the words will be counted, every one.
For your edification, if you have patience, this link will help clarify the actual theme of this thread, in a very exegetical analysis:
http://www.happyheralds.org/HAVEYOUGOTTHEGIFT.htm
Excerpt:
"... even in Paul’s day there was a counterfeit gospel (of a different kind than Paul preached) and a counterfeit spirit which presented another Jesus of the same kind. The spirit which puts emphasis upon himself and the gospel which stresses getting that spirit is contrary to the gospel which Paul preached and that spirit is contrary to The Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ promised to send."
It's worth checking out ---
The tediousness of the exhaustive ‘proof texting’ efforts at rationalizing such a perspective about
cessationism is incredible.
It’s as though no amount of irrational, illogic will persuade such folks away from their tedious hollow ‘proofs’ of their biases.
I’m reminded of the pharisees who were so skillful at rationalizing protecting their monies from taking care of their parents by devoting them to God.
Humans have ever been skillful at rationalizing away God’s rather clear meanings in His Word.
I Cor 13 is not that difficult. Sigh.
I think I’ll hit the shower and maybe a nap. Tired.
I read what you have said, and it DOES sound somewhat legalistic, archaic and demeaning to women and their place within the Body of Christ today. Certainly not all women are married or have a husband who is able to teach them. I graduated from a Bible College and my husband, who is a devoted Christian, asks ME about Biblical matters and doctrine. He IS the leader in our home and I respect his authority as well as his responsibility, but I do not look down on him because he is not the Bible teacher in our marriage. Is it the "ideal" that husbands be the spiritual leaders? Perhaps. But that does not make it mandatory in order to have a right relationship with Christ. Just as Scripture says each man should be "fully persuaded in his own mind" about such issues as feast days and sabbaths, so must each believer answer to God personally for every area of their lives. There WERE women deacons in the early church, most likely "servants" or "ministers" and not necessarily an "office" of a deacon:
Phoebe is most likely identified as a woman deacon of the church at Cenchrea in Romans 16:1 (affirmed by complementarian commentators such as Douglas Moo [NICNT] and Thomas Schreiner [BECNT]). Paul’s mention of women deacons coheres well with his earlier prohibition of women serving in teaching or ruling functions over men (1 Tim. 2:12) and his lack of mention of women elders in 1 Timothy 3:1–7.
Since being a deacon does not involve teaching or ruling, women as well as men are eligible to serve in this capacity. Note that there is no requirement of marital faithfulness in the case of women deacons (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2, 12), presumably because male marital infidelity was common while female infidelity was not, and possibly also because women deacons were not necessarily expected to be married (some may have been widows or single).
Many conservative churches are hesitant to appoint women deacons because deacons often have a governing role. They fear that having women deacons may suggest theological liberalism, since Scripture does not permit women to serve in governing positions (see esp. 1 Tim. 2:12; 5:17). However, the problem here is not women deacons but the unbiblical understanding of the role of deacon. (http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/women-deacons/)
Finally, God "gifts" the church with those who:
I Cor. 12:27-31 "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."
The greater gifts are obviously those that edify the church, the believers. Ephesians 4:11-13 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
We are all one in Christ and God has given to the church those that edify the believers within it, all to his glory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.