The Rise of the Papacy

Ligonier Ministries ^ | David Wells

[af_vet_1981]

For us, this is street evangelism. Authority can't be usurped where it doesn't exist. No anonymous poster coming to this forum can presume ecclesiastical authority over anyone.

I think I understand you. Might this be interpreted as, "street evangelism is whatever we (my church/sect" says it is. No one, and no scripture anyone quotes, is going to have any influence or authority over how we conduct our "street evangelism." Is that a fair characterization ?

I'm Go back and reread your passage on Jezebel. Was her condemnation for being a female teaching males, or was it for teaching fornication ?

Both, actually three strikes; first she violated Paul's scripture, secondly the Law, and third the commandment of The Lord. Which transgression started the heresy ? Just as Paul warned ?but having the occasion to study it somewhat for purposes of our conversation I am beginning to believe even my own view may have need of better calibration to the Scriptures.

I'm not surprised by this outcome.

[af_vet_1981]

m Go back and reread your passage on Jezebel. Was her condemnation for being a female teaching males, or was it for teaching fornication ?

meant to add: There are three transgressions listed for Jezebel of Thyatira, and the first is she was teaching.

[af_vet_1981]

There were genuine prophetesses in Paul's day. Are you claiming there are prophetesses today inspired by the Holy Spirit whose very words are the Word of God? Is that reformed Baptist theology ? I thought not; I understood Baptists thought the Canon was closed. There is no stopping the Holy Spirit. If He speaks by man, woman, or animal, it does not return void. Of course, if a man or woman claims to be a prophet or prophetess, and is not, what is the penalty ? Jezebel of Thyatira. Hannah (Anna) was genuine, as was Miriam. I'm still looking for examples of women leading "street evangelism" to men in the Scriptures but I suppose if it's not there, it doesn't matter anyway. People are going to do whatsoever they want anyway. And all the Protestant/Evangelical/Other churches are probably going to have women teaching men. The Fundamentalists and Catholic/Orthodox may hold out.

[af_vet_1981]

Consider Balaam, son of Beor, for example. He too corrupted the children of Israel with equally horrific perversions. And a male. Yet God chose to speak to him through a mere beast of burden.

and then had him killed; btw his name is in Revelation too.

[metmom]

And let’s not forget Deborah, one of Israels judges in the time of the judges.

[Springfield Reformer]

Consolidated response:

SR: You seem to want to turn any public setting, electronic or otherwise, into an open air synagogue running under a gag order against women.

AF: hmm, a similar mischaracterization might be "You seem to want to turn any public setting, electronic or otherwise into an open air shuk (market), preempting and setting at nought the Scriptural commandments against genuine Christian women teaching men.

I'm not trying to mischaracterize your position. Seriously.  I'm really not.  But from what you've said so far, yes, I really gather that you want to impose a misunderstood rule in a universe of settings to which it doesn't apply, the net effect of which is an unbiblical universal gag order on women instructing men about the Gospel.  I don't begrudge you an honest mistake. But you cannot expect me or the others here to be persuaded, based on the evidence you have provided thus far, that any rule of church decorum extends beyond the public meeting setting for which it was designed.  

Of course street evangelism must be done in accord with basic principles of Christian conduct, love, faith, charity, sobriety, self-control, graceful speech, humility, boldness to proclaim the Gospel, and many, many other principles which could be cited. . Thankfully, as we have learned from Priscilla, Anna, and the others, none of those principles preclude a woman from teaching a man doctrine, providing she is doing so under proper authority and in the proper setting, as would really be true for any evangelist.

There were genuine prophetesses in Paul's day. Are you claiming there are prophetesses today inspired by the Holy Spirit whose very words are the Word of God? Is that reformed Baptist theology ? I thought not; I understood Baptists thought the Canon was closed. There is no stopping the Holy Spirit. If He speaks by man, woman, or animal, it does not return void. Of course, if a man or woman claims to be a prophet or prophetess, and is not, what is the penalty ? Jezebel of Thyatira. Hannah (Anna) was genuine, as was Miriam. I'm still looking for examples of women leading "street evangelism" to men in the Scriptures but I suppose if it's not there, it doesn't matter anyway. People are going to do whatsoever they want anyway. And all the Protestant/Evangelical/Other churches are probably going to have women teaching men. The Fundamentalists and Catholic/Orthodox may hold out.

No, you misunderstand the role of prophet. Yes, we agree the canon is closed. But Anna, whom you must agree was a true prophetess, spoke many things by the Holy Spirit that were never added to the canon. What she spoke by the Holy Spirit was still an authentic work of God speaking to those who needed to hear what He gave her to say.  Similarly, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the Holy Spirit has ceased from speaking to Christians in ways that do not need to become canonical, but are nevertheless truly a work of God, such as the lost prophecies of Anna or the unrecorded words of Priscilla as she and Aquila evangelized Apollos.

Furthermore, the notion of "prophecy" in modern English is truncated from it's fuller range in the original languages, which even the older English shared, that prophet is anyone who "expresses forth" the truth under the power of the Spirit, even if that truth is not new revelation in the canonical sense. The Greek term prophetes is a composite of two words, pro and phemi.  Pro can refer to a priority in time or space or position (as in pro-spect versus pro-ject). Phemi describes a divulging of thought, not necessarily future events.  So prophecy, while it does require a gifting of the Holy Spirit, does not always entail telling future events, or new revelation. And it has been long understood, at least in Protestant traditions, that on any given Sunday, when the sermon is given under the authority of God's word and accompanied by the power of His Spirit, prophecy has occurred.

By the same token, the women of 1 Corinthians 11 who prophesy in the public meeting need only that they do so according to the rule of orderliness Paul provided. That rule has never been abrogated, and as the giving of prophecy in local settings is nowhere said to be limited by the closing of the Biblical canon, that rule stands today, along with the behavior it is designed to regulate, the expressing of divine truth by believing women in the public assembly.

SR: For us, this is street evangelism. Authority can't be usurped where it doesn't exist. No anonymous poster coming to this forum can presume ecclesiastical authority over anyone.

AF: I think I understand you. Might this be interpreted as, "street evangelism is whatever we (my church/sect" says it is. No one, and no scripture anyone quotes, is going to have any influence or authority over how we conduct our "street evangelism." Is that a fair characterization ?

No, it's not fair, and I'm pretty sure you knew I would say that.  Indeed, your characterization is so far off base I have no way of navigating back to a meaningful response. Other than this: Rules apply in their given jurisdiction. Not outside. Jurisdictions overlap and share some rules. Others they don't.  That's just how law works. I am sorry you're having trouble with that idea, but if your sincere desire is to understand us, rather than merely ridicule us, you will have to get off first base on the idea of jurisdiction. Just the way it is.

SR: Go back and reread your passage on Jezebel. Was her condemnation for being a female teaching males, or was it for teaching fornication ?

AF: Both, actually three strikes; first she violated Paul's scripture, secondly the Law, and third the commandment of The Lord. Which transgression started the heresy ? Just as Paul warned ?

Nope. It is more likely we will discover unicorns exist than we will ever find anything in the inspired text that declares Jezebel's condemnation was in any way related to her gender:

Rev 2:20-24  Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.  (21)  And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.  (22)  Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.  (23)  And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.  (24)  But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

Nice try linking it back to Paul's discussion of heresy, and yes there are false prophetesses in the world, but there are also false prophets (as Balaam), so the gender status of a prophet, by itself, is absolutely meaningless, and you have nothing here but a red herring. 

SR: but having the occasion to study it somewhat for purposes of our conversation I am beginning to believe even my own view may have need of better calibration to the Scriptures.

AF: I'm not surprised by this outcome. 

You shouldn't be. Scripture has that effect on me. Not being infallible and all-knowing, I do sometimes learn from it. You think that's a bad thing?

How slippery is the slope in reformed Baptist churches ?

Inasmuch as your link has no connection I could discover to reformed baptist churches per se, I don't know how you think it addresses that specific question. Every denomination I spotted in there has for about a century been lost to anti-supernatural, humanistic liberalism to one degree or another. That disqualifies them as being Reformed. Reformed Baptists of my experience are very committed to Scripture as supernatural, God-breathed, and not subject to second-guessing, and the pastoral qualification lists in the pastoral epistles would be strictly honored, including gender.  That is an altogether different question than discerning from Scripture the proper roles for everyone in the public and private life of the ecclesia, as well as outside activities such as evangelism. I recognize you are having a hard time seeing those lines, but those lines do exist, and will not go away, as they are holy writ, and will stand until the end of the age. Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 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. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I assumed all Baptist churches believe prophecy ceased (yes I am well aware of the attempt to substitute the word preaching for prophesying; which in this context argues for women preachers even more; I mean real prophesying as in Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. I truly am surprised to see you apparently saying, if the set of your comments are correctly synthesized, that people blogging on FR are "prophesying" as Anna did. Maybe there is a Pentecostal element I did not recognize heretofore. That would explain much.

But you cannot expect me or the others here to be persuaded, based on the evidence you have provided thus far, that any rule of church decorum extends beyond the public meeting setting for which it was designed.

I think we have a fundamentally different perspective and understanding of what it means to be Orthodox, from multiple directions. I'm not persuaded by your arguments either, which I regard as rationalization for cultural changes coinciding with a general feminist surge (which will result in a groundswell of support for a female President), I find the recent rise of women in clergy to coincide with other predictable consequences, as Paul wrote, and read similar rationalizations of Scripture arguing for modernity and progress for gay and lesbian clergy, as well as such congregational members being able to marry. The long struggle for women to break the stained-glass ceiling in houses of worship may be easing the way for openly gay and lesbian leaders, new research indicates.

Congregations that allow women to be head clergy are nearly twice as likely to accept gays and lesbians as members.

And the odds of congregations being open to gays and lesbians as leaders are three times greater in congregations that permit women pastors than in congregations that do not allow women to be head clergy, researcher Andrew Whitehead found in analyzing data from the 2006-2007 National Congregations Study.

Of course street evangelism must be done in accord with basic principles of Christian conduct, love, faith, charity, sobriety, self-control, graceful speech, humility, boldness to proclaim the Gospel, and many, many other principles which could be cited.

No, it must not, as this exercise has shown. Those claiming "street evangelism" can do what they want. You cannot impose your list of values and interpretations on them. They're not in church, and if they were, its not your, or your father's, church anyway. I'm not persuaded blogging is "street evangelism;" it seems more like a hobby for those interested in politics or religion, or a social networking outlet for the homebound.

[af_vet_1981]

I left this out; I do not concede your point that the Apostle to the Gentiles was only speaking of formal church assemblies. This text is about the whole dedicated life of the believer and to put it on that shelf of an hour or two a week ... I find unpersuasive. I believe it was the way of life.

Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Also, Jezebel was condemned for three actions, separated by and/kai, and the placement of "teaching" first, with what you will find, the same word "teach" forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2, with respect to teaching men, is the same word used in the Revelation condemnation of both Baalam and Jezebel of Thyatira. That suggests a correlation for Jezebel and "teaching". There was also a fourth offense. She called herself a prophetess.

[Springfield Reformer]

I assumed all Baptist churches believe prophecy ceased (yes I am well aware of the attempt to substitute the word preaching for prophesying; which in this context argues for women preachers even more; I mean real prophesying as in Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. I truly am surprised to see you apparently saying, if the set of your comments are correctly synthesized, that people blogging on FR are "prophesying" as Anna did. Maybe there is a Pentecostal element I did not recognize heretofore. That would explain much.

I was raised in a church that was cessasionist, and I believed it for a long time. I know all those arguments like the back of my hand.  I used them. I have since come to realize I was wrong.  The potential for misunderstanding here is great, because it is obvious we have very different working understandings of several key terms.  The simple version is this.  I know all the miraculous gifts will become unnecessary one day, and that love, the greatest gift, will never cease. But the time of perfection, the time when all these things become unnecessary, is when seeing through the glass darkly gives way to seeing Him face to face.  

Do you see Him face to face? I don't.  Not yet.  I will someday.  And on that day, when the perfect is come, and the imperfect is done away, we will have no need for those lesser things. Until then, I see no way to foreclose God from using any of them as He sees fit. That's not an excuse to go lazy and buy everything every televangelist sells. We should, as John says, test the spirits. And as the Bereans did, check every alleged message against the master template, Scripture, and reject whatever does not conform. But neither will I be hard-hearted toward the workings of God among His people.  Being a Christian is supernatural business.

As for me being a pentecostal, no. I've seen miraculous things. I've seen rage and spite and throwing literal stones, at me, melt away in a moment at the mention of Jesus' name,  and what looked hopeless turned into a changed life. But I've never spoken in tongues. None of that stuff you see on TV.  A quiet life, mine. Some hardships, yes, but as a Christian I am a committed optimist, and the joy He has brought into my life through His redeeming love is all I need. But others need their special help when they need it.  God works as He sees fit.  It is not my place to speak against the workings of the Holy Spirit, only to be careful to follow the word and not my own imagination or the seductions of the tempter.

As for Anna, show me from the text she was predicting anything, or doing anything other that what Priscilla did with Apollos, showing the way more perfectly.  You see, we do have a significant difference in perspective, and it has nothing to do with Pentecostalism. As a matter of principle, I am unwilling to make binding, on either myself or others, any gray areas that are not clearly spelled out by the text of Scripture. It's way above my pay grade.  Sure I'll try to think what's in those missing words.  But I won't make up rules that God didn't make plain and lay them as burdens on others.

As for what we are doing here, is it prophesying? The word studies showing there is a generic, non-future telling sense of the word are legitimate.  You can disbelieve that if you like. Doesn't change the truth. But in the absence of a clear end to the prophetic and other supernatural gifts, that wouldn't even matter, would it. Because the rule of church order of 1 Corinthians 11 would still apply. Believe what you like.

I think we have a fundamentally different perspective and understanding of what it means to be Orthodox, from multiple directions. I'm not persuaded by your arguments either, which I regard as rationalization for cultural changes coinciding with a general feminist surge (which will result in a groundswell of support for a female President), I find the recent rise of women in clergy to coincide with other predictable consequences, as Paul wrote, and read similar rationalizations of Scripture arguing for modernity and progress for gay and lesbian clergy, as well as such congregational members being able to marry

Of course you understand we are talking, not about women pastors here, but private people in public venues sharing the Gospel with lost souls.  Talking here at FR is nothing other than sitting on your porch and chatting with some neighbors that happen by, except that our porches are electronic and a lot less walking distance between them than there used to be.  The only person who stands to gain by silencing half the body of Christ in such an opportune setting for sharing the Gospel is Satan.

As for being "orthodox," what is that but to believe what Scripture actually teaches, and not to make up new rules that run against clear examples in Scripture. If you have some other definition that's up to you.  The best defense against the evil of gender confusion is to center our views of gender on Scripture, because only God fully understands the design of our lives. If we push so hard in rejecting one evil we create another evil just as distortive of God's design, what have we gained? Nothing.  It is clear God designed women to be a vital part of the life of His ecclesia.  Who was it who first believed our Lord was raised from the dead, and told the doubting men He was alive?  

Mar 16:9-11  Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.  (10)  And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.  (11)  And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

Mary believed, I think in part, because she had been to that place in her life where the disciples hadn't been yet. She had had her life totally ruined by Satan. Jesus reversed all that for her. And then He raised her even higher, and made her the first believer to teach others concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And her first pupils were all men.

SR: Of course street evangelism must be done in accord with basic principles of Christian conduct, love, faith, charity, sobriety, self-control, graceful speech, humility, boldness to proclaim the Gospel, and many, many other principles which could be cited.

AF: No, it must not, as this exercise has shown. Those claiming "street evangelism" can do what they want. You cannot impose your list of values and interpretations on them. They're not in church, and if they were, its not your, or your father's, church anyway. I'm not persuaded blogging is "street evangelism;" it seems more like a hobby for those interested in politics or religion, or a social networking outlet for the homebound.

When you say, "You cannot impose your list of values and interpretations on them," do you mean we don't need the fruits of the Spirit? You just cited to 1 Corinthians 13. When I also cite that passage by acknowledging our universal need for faith, hope, and charity, you don't understand that as agreement? And each of the others is lifted from various Scriptures describing the fruit of the Spirit in the Christian's life.  See Galatians 5:22 for starters. Now I know that's not actually a rule in the sense of law, but one can't really be considered a Christian without the Spirit, and the Spirit produces these fruits. I really thought you would agree with me on this.  I thought this would be something beyond argument. I see I was wrong.  But whether you agree or not, these are some of the principles that would be truly universal, because they reach deeper than one's behavior during public meetings, and reveal who we should be in character and thought in all places and at all times. These are the things that make us by nature the sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.

But none of these things are possible apart from the new birth, being born of the Spirit. The carnal mind thinks these things are all foolishness.  The child of God holds them more precious than the breath of life.  To evangelize anyone, to have a spiritual life worth sharing with anyone, one must first be spiritually alive.  That is done by a sovereign act of Almighty God. No amount of rule-keeping can produce it. Only when God does His miracle of opening the sinner's eyes to the leprosy of their sin, will they turn hard to Him for the cure, which cure is found only in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Asked and answered, too many times already now. I leave the reader to judge. I see no reason for remaining in an infinite loop on this red herring.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

As a matter of principle, I am unwilling to make binding, on either myself or others, any gray areas that are not clearly spelled out by the text of Scripture. It's way above my pay grade. Sure I'll try to think what's in those missing words. But I won't make up rules that God didn't make plain and lay them as burdens on others.

Which is where far too many churches fail, including and especially, the Catholic church.

[mitch5501]

"But none of these things are possible apart from the new birth, being born of the Spirit. The carnal mind thinks these things are all foolishness. The child of God holds them more precious than the breath of life. To evangelize anyone, to have a spiritual life worth sharing with anyone, one must first be spiritually alive. That is done by a sovereign act of Almighty God. No amount of rule-keeping can produce it. Only when God does His miracle of opening the sinner's eyes to the leprosy of their sin, will they turn hard to Him for the cure, which cure is found only in the shed blood of Jesus Christ."

Painfull,sobering,scary,encouraging and uplifting!

Thankyou so much SR!

1 Corinthians 14:12 "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

Praise God!

[af_vet_1981]

I too, run short on time, so I will endeavour (and probably fail) to make this brief.
1. If one, in fact, surrenders the cessasionist position and allows for the gifts, especially prophecy, to still be extant, I see no defense for the completion of the Canon. It is untenable to allow new revelation, spoken through men or women, by the Holy Spirit and not collect it in manuscripts and publish it. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Further, if you discount this warning as it is only applicable to the Revelation itself, and it is applicable in that context, but do not extend it to perfect and complete the Canon, For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen., then I expect one would admit more literature as holy writ. Take all the Charismatic authors of the last century and select some of their texts for inclusion. That is where I see the slippery slope of modern Pentacostalism. Further, it is completely illogical that you would allow for these gifts and miracles, and then try to bar the door to Miriam, the mother of God with us, should God send her to appear to little ones in Lourdes or Fatima. Pentacostalism or its derivatives must surely include the possibility of visits from angels or saints. Shall not two witnesses still appear and do miracles (this one I allow), unless one is a Preterist ?
2. As for Anna, a Jewess of God, And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Perhaps, as there is not much filled in, she had married into a Temple service family and was the widow of a Levite and allowed to live with the other Levites. And these are the singers, chief of the fathers of the Levites, who remaining in the chambers were free: for they were employed in that work day and night. These chief fathers of the Levites were chief throughout their generations; these dwelt at Jerusalem. In any case, the presentation of the firstborn son at the Temple would occur in an area where women were allowed (I assume Court of the Women) after his circumcision was complete and his mother waited the time of purification, which is what Luke says. So having Anna in that area was not unusual, and I'm satisfied she did nothing wrong at all. She was very old (at least 84) and the idea of this Jewish woman performing "street evangelism" in the context mentioned is preposterous. She was a devout Jewess and lived Torah. This is an error of cultural bias to try to use Anna to justify today's surge of feminism among those who claim the name of Jesus.
3. Calling what goes on in FR, "street evangelism" would be more aptly and honestly named "street fighting." Contrary to what you wrote, I do in fact hold that the fruit of the Spirit must accompany anyone who is really on the clock for God. I was pointing out by the new line of argument you were making that there is no restriction on women teaching men outside formal assemblies was a bit like "don't ask, don't tell," doomed to fail. The feminist surge will never be content with any restrictions whatsoever on their equal access to any role, right, or privilege granted to men. Most of what I read on FR is a firm and steady contention by participants of either gender for the doctrines they believe. It is very, very, very, rarely evangelism. It is an attempt to teach other men and women doctrine, or to prove said doctrine to themselves. Ignoring 1 Timothy on the proper role of women is another a violation of the scripture given to us by God through his chosen vessel, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Women are spiritually equal to men, and a woman is equally united with a man in holy matrimony. God has ordained different roles for men and women. Yet people will do what they want to do, and convince themself it is right, no matter what scripture says. And this was all predicted.

[Springfield Reformer]

If one, in fact, surrenders the cessationist position and allows for the gifts, especially prophecy, to still be extant, I see no defense for the completion of the Canon. It is untenable to allow new revelation, spoken through men or women, by the Holy Spirit and not collect it in manuscripts and publish it.

There is no teaching in Scripture that all Holy Spirit-guided saying must be recorded and admitted to the canon. Nor does logic recommend such an absurdity.  As I pointed out before, Anna was a prophetess.  She spoke under the power of God's Spirit.  But we do not have a record of those words, only a general topic.  You would not suggest, I am sure, that God erred in leaving out those words. And if He can leave out those words, He can as His sovereign will dictates include or exclude any words He chooses.

So your premise is disclosed to be a false dilemma. God has delivered His word to many people through Scripture as a universal rule of faith, AND He can speak to individuals and local groups as the need arises, without canonizing those communications.  It's not our place to predetermine what God can and cannot do in this regard.  Our only true and binding guide on this matter is what He has already demonstrated for us in Scripture, and He has opted time and time again to use both men and women for that purpose.

I would also add at this point that it is surprising you object to the idea of adding to the canon, because that in effect is exactly what Rome does whenever she declares as dogma any doctrine that cannot be found fully expressed in Scripture. Cardinal Newmann writes off this deutero-canonization of dogma as doctrinal development, but it is no different in principle than your much feared ever-growing pentecostal canon.  And what I am describing is not even close to the agressiveness of Rome in adding to the body of things that must be believed. 

Further, if you discount this warning as it is only applicable to the Revelation itself, and it is applicable in that context, but do not extend it to perfect and complete the Canon, ...[John's admonition not to add words to the Revelation]  then I expect one would admit more literature as holy writ. Take all the Charismatic authors of the last century and select some of their texts for inclusion. That is where I see the slippery slope of modern Pentecostalism.

Except for two things. First, the admonition in the Revelation is crystal clear: It is John's Revelation we are not to tamper with. If you try to force it to say more than it says by trying to stretch it to cover the entire canon, then you are indeed adding to the words of the book. You do what you like. That's too dangerous for me.

Second, admission to the canon is not up to either private individuals like ourselves OR to religious institutions. The word of God is self-authenticating, and has always been recognizable to the people of God as a whole.  Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice; another they will not follow." That principle is true because Jesus said so, and it has never stopped operating.

Which gets us down to the nitty gritty. This whole operation is supernatural. Christians are in fellowship with the Creator of all things, the King of the Universe, who will NOT share His glory with another.  He is the one building His ecclesia, and He will not fail at it. So our concern should not be carnal, like Uzzah, who worried about the ark falling, but God smote Him for breaking His command.  God was never concerned about the safety of the ark,  He could take care of it Himself.  But obedience matters. Our quest in understanding Scripture can never be rooted in consequentialism, that we must come up with solutions, even if they're wrong, because otherwise we think something bad will happen.  That is NOT God's way. He asks us to trust Him, even when trusting Him makes no earthly sense. We walk not by sight but by faith, and that includes evaluating the teaching of Scripture. We must follow it wherever it leads us, else we have become our own shepherds, and are bound for harm.

Further, it is completely illogical that you would allow for these gifts and miracles, and then try to bar the door to Miriam, the mother of God with us, should God send her to appear to little ones in Lourdes or Fatima. Pentecostalism or its derivatives must surely include the possibility of visits from angels or saints. Shall not two witnesses still appear and do miracles (this one I allow), unless one is a Preterist ?

No, it does not follow that a Christian life lived in the context of miracles would automatically sanction any claim of Marian apparition, for several reasons:

1. None of the gifts specified to the church through the Holy Spirit involve necromancy. There are clear indications in Scripture God does not want us involved in any form of communication with the dead, even the lively dead. To the contrary, all gifts to the ecclesia are for her edification, and as necromancy is not listed among those gifts, it is safe to conclude it is not necessary for the building up of the churches.

2. We know, from Scripture, that Satan is capable of appearing as an angel of light, so we should be wary of any apparition claiming divine origin, as standard operating procedure to preserve ourselves from deception. Therefore any such apparition would need to pass muster as being totally aligned with the current body of revealed and binding truth, and that will be a very hard test to pass.

3. Excepting the one murky instance of Samuel appearing to Saul, all other good apparitions in Scripture are either of Christ in a theophany or one of God's holy angels, not people passed on.  And based on how things went for Saul after that encounter, I wouldn't recommend such activity.

4.  I'm glad you recognize the two witnesses as valid prophets not yet on the scene.  I am not a preterist.  But you must also recognize then that your cessationism is now qualified and not absolute, and that reduces us to disagreeing only in degree, not in principle.  Thus you have to find why some prophets will be allowed and some not, though both speak under the impetus of the same Holy Spirit.  I don't believe that can be accomplished by assigning an arbitrary date of closure to the canon based on a hypothetical withdrawal of the gifts.  It is ungrounded in Scripture, and gives no universal principle for recognition of canonical texts.

As for Anna, a Jewess of God,

Yes it is a wonderful little tile in the mosaic of the nativity narrative. What a blessing to have lived to see Him, and then share that with those who were also looking for Him,

Perhaps, as there is not much filled in, she had married into a Temple service family and was the widow of a Levite and allowed to live with the other Levites.

Perhaps, but all it shows is that there were conditions under which a woman might serve as a prophetess.  You have long argued with me about the essential continuity of the mosaic law.  If there is any consistency in Moses at all, it must OK to be a prophetess under the right conditions.  I do not believe the condemnation of Jezebel was that she was a female prophet. It's that she called herself a prophetess who was no prophetess.  This means the label isn't condemned, only the abuse of it by pretenders. Sort of like impersonating a police officer.  That doesn't discredit the idea of being an officer, but only discredits faking it.

In any case, the presentation of the firstborn son at the Temple would occur in an area where women were allowed (I assume Court of the Women) after his circumcision was complete and his mother waited the time of purification, which is what Luke says. So having Anna in that area was not unusual, and I'm satisfied she did nothing wrong at all. She was very old (at least 84) and the idea of this Jewish woman performing "street evangelism" in the context mentioned is preposterous. She was a devout Jewess and lived Torah. This is an error of cultural bias to try to use Anna to justify today's surge of feminism among those who claim the name of Jesus.

No, you cannot claim an absolute rule and then start excusing exceptions.  If there are exceptions, the rule is not absolute. Furthermore, I think you are taking me a tad too literally, and that may be my fault.  When I say "street evangelism," I am simply setting up a contrast to your hypothetical universal ban on females sharing the Gospel with men outside the public meeting. Actual street evangelism is only one of many possible venues for such exchanges. My own mother was a "mall missionary." In her later years, with us all gone from the house, and her heart failing, she spent as much time as she could telling others about Jesus. Mostly at the mall.

Calling what goes on in FR, "street evangelism" would be more aptly and honestly named "street fighting."

Truthfully it's some of both, because apologetics has never been an entirely friendly sport. Folks come here incredibly invested in some group or another, and it's really not easy trying to see things from some other viewpoint. I get that.  So I try to keep an even keel when I hear people say outrageous things (as I consider your Jezebel theory to be).  But being human means having human failings. That's why I end nearly every post with a wish for peace.  I honestly don't enjoy the fighting either.  It's just something that comes with the territory of trying to share the Gospel.

Contrary to what you wrote, I do in fact hold that the fruit of the Spirit must accompany anyone who is really on the clock for God.

In my Bible, there's no such thing as being "off the clock" for God.  If you are a believer, these are the universal qualities we must have.  And as I said before, they can't be manufactured by rule-keeping.  They come from our inner life with the Spirit of God, or we just don't have them.  So if we DO have the Spirit of Christ, we are never off that clock. Thank God.

I was pointing out by the new line of argument you were making that there is no restriction on women teaching men outside formal assemblies was a bit like "don't ask, don't tell," doomed to fail. The feminist surge will never be content with any restrictions whatsoever on their equal access to any role, right, or privilege granted to men.

But the fruits of the Spirit are a constraint.  They keep us from doing whatever is not of faith, whatever is not of love. We are imperfect of course, and need daily to come to the river of God for the refreshment of those living waters Jesus promised to those who believe in Him. The Spirit convicts our heart of undisclosed sin, opens our eyes to new opportunities, lights our path as we seek the mind of God in Scripture. And so much more.

The point of all this, for our purposes, is that a genuine believer, whether in street evangelism, home evangelism, forum evangelism, is a light set on a hill that cannot be, and should not be hid.  We are living letters of the grace of God, witnesses to the power of God's love and forgiveness.  See what the woman at the well does after meeting Jesus?

John 4:28-29  The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,  (29)  Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

No barriers there. Just the excitement of discovering Messiah, following by irrepressible evangelism, "Come see a man ... is this not the Messiah?"  The very best kind of evangelism. And "to the men."

Most of what I read on FR is a firm and steady contention by participants of either gender for the doctrines they believe. It is very, very, very, rarely evangelism.

What then does evangelism mean to you? It's sharing the Gospel, the truth about God to lost sinners trapped in so many different schemes of the Devil.

It is an attempt to teach other men and women doctrine, or to prove said doctrine to themselves.

Yes, because the Gospel IS doctrine. How can you tell someone that Jesus is God come in the flesh to die for our sins and rise again without covering nearly every important doctrine that constitutes the Christian faith? In our fellowship in every sermon our pastors are pointing us to Jesus.  Many people come into our lives, whether here or at FR, who are looking to anything and everything BUT Jesus for their salvation, work, drugs, sex, church, entertainment, you name it. It's a rolling tragedy and it cries out for laborers willing to go out into the field and work the harvest. God does not change. If He has used both men and women to bring this happy message to a weeping world, and you have already conceded that He has, He can be relied on to continue to do the same until the day He returns for us.

Ignoring 1 Timothy on the proper role of women is another a violation of the scripture given to us by God through his chosen vessel, the Apostle to the Gentiles.

It is no violation of Scripture to rightly divide the word of God, because as Peter said of Paul, there are some things he said that can be twisted. That's why example is so important. If Christian women can prophesy in the public assembly in 1 Corinthians 11, surely they can do lesser things, such as share divine truth with their unsaved electronic neighbors.

Women are spiritually equal to men, and a woman is equally united with a man in holy matrimony. God has ordained different roles for men and women. Yet people will do what they want to do, and convince themself it is right, no matter what scripture says. And this was all predicted

I am not disagreeing with you that there is a difference in the roles. I am merely trying to acknowledge that there are Scriptures that must be accounted for in evaluating your proposed total ban on Christian women talking to men about spiritual things. To get there you have to ignore the contrary evidence, which was written by the same Holy Spirit.  Is not the more noble position to try at least to reconcile all the data points till they harmonize with each other?  You can try to hang on to that one note you're playing but there are many other notes to this song, and they all are true.  Cessationism doesn't work.  1 Corinthians 13 fixes the time of cessation as when we meet Jesus face to face, not when the canon is closed.

So Priscilla doesn't go away, and the prophesying women of 1 Corinthians 11 do not go away.  And the public meeting context of 1 Timothy 2 doesn't go away. The ordinary and universal obligation of every believer to share the Gospel does not go away. These are all legitimate factors that limit the jurisdiction of the rule of quiet learning.  Ephesus was dominated by the city's powerful Diana cult, in which matriarchy was the ideal. It was no doubt necessary under such conditions to remind these women that they needed to be quiet in a context of learning, and not try to domineer over the men, whether by teaching or any other means. Similarly, the men apparently had problems with orderly conduct in the public meetings too, because back in verse 8 Paul is also reminding them to lead the public prayers (lifting holy hands) without wrath and doubting. Timothy had his hands full, and Paul was giving him some tools to bring things back under control.

Transforming that sensible strategy for order in Timothy's church into a universal ban on women sharing the Gospel with lost religionists in all public venues is a breathtaking stretch, and I am grateful God made it clear through other Scriptures that is NOT His plan for women in the churches. But if you are willing to blow past all those examples that prove your theory of interpretation incorrect, where does that leave me?  I don't want to follow false teachers either, and when I see relevant Scriptural evidence being passed up, repeatedly, the alarms go off. No matter how much I might want to find a peaceful accord, I can't walk away from that "whole counsel of God."

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

There is no teaching in Scripture that all Holy Spirit-guided saying must be recorded and admitted to the canon. Nor does logic recommend such an absurdity. As I pointed out before, Anna was a prophetess. She spoke under the power of God's Spirit. But we do not have a record of those words, only a general topic. You would not suggest, I am sure, that God erred in leaving out those words. And if He can leave out those words, He can as His sovereign will dictates include or exclude any words He chooses. So your premise is disclosed to be a false dilemma. God has delivered His word to many people through Scripture as a universal rule of faith, AND He can speak to individuals and local groups as the need arises, without canonizing those communications. It's not our place to predetermine what God can and cannot do in this regard. Our only true and binding guide on this matter is what He has already demonstrated for us in Scripture, and He has opted time and time again to use both men and women for that purpose. I would also add at this point that it is surprising you object to the idea of adding to the canon, because that in effect is exactly what Rome does whenever she declares as dogma any doctrine that cannot be found fully expressed in Scripture. Cardinal Newmann writes off this deutero-canonization of dogma as doctrinal development, but it is no different in principle than your much feared ever-growing pentecostal canon. And what I am describing is not even close to the agressiveness of Rome in adding to the body of things that must be believed. Further, if you discount this warning as it is only applicable to the Revelation itself, and it is applicable in that context, but do not extend it to perfect and complete the Canon, ...[John's admonition not to add words to the Revelation] then I expect one would admit more literature as holy writ. Take all the Charismatic authors of the last century and select some of their texts for inclusion. That is where I see the slippery slope of modern Pentecostalism. Except for two things. First, the admonition in the Revelation is crystal clear: It is John's Revelation we are not to tamper with. If you try to force it to say more than it says by trying to stretch it to cover the entire canon, then you are indeed adding to the words of the book. You do what you like. That's too dangerous for me. Second, admission to the canon is not up to either private individuals like ourselves OR to religious institutions. The word of God is self-authenticating, and has always been recognizable to the people of God as a whole. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice; another they will not follow." That principle is true because Jesus said so, and it has never stopped operating. Which gets us down to the nitty gritty. This whole operation is supernatural. Christians are in fellowship with the Creator of all things, the King of the Universe, who will NOT share His glory with another. He is the one building His ecclesia, and He will not fail at it. So our concern should not be carnal, like Uzzah, who worried about the ark falling, but God smote Him for breaking His command. God was never concerned about the safety of the ark, He could take care of it Himself. But obedience matters. Our quest in understanding Scripture can never be rooted in consequentialism, that we must come up with solutions, even if they're wrong, because otherwise we think something bad will happen. That is NOT God's way. He asks us to trust Him, even when trusting Him makes no earthly sense. We walk not by sight but by faith, and that includes evaluating the teaching of Scripture. We must follow it wherever it leads us, else we have become our own shepherds, and are bound for harm.

The Scriptures clearly show that genuine prophecy is inspired by the Holy Spirit. My point is not that all prophecy must become part of the Canon, but rather that it is eligible to be included. Genuine prophecy has the same authority as other Scriptures. Ergo, if you believe there are prophets and prophetesses today, the Canon is not closed. There is more revelation. Furthermore, you no longer have Sola Scriptura, for you are adding prophecy. Further, you must accept the possibility of Lourdes and Fatima, that Mary, mother of God with us, has in fact ascended to heaven and has prophesied. Moses (who died) and Elijah are examples other than Samuel. They appeared with Jesus and were talking. Enoch is another examples of translation or ascension. Paul also referred to a man caught up: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

I already affirmed the warning in Revelation referred to itself, "this book." Given the death penalty for a false prophet or prophetess, in both Torah and Revelation, I would argue against adding to the Canon. There is at least one non-catholic American religion which not only believed the gift of prophecy continued but added a book as well.

[af_vet_1981]

Transforming that sensible strategy for order in Timothy's church into a universal ban on women sharing the Gospel with lost religionists in all public venues is a breathtaking stretch, and I am grateful God made it clear through other Scriptures that is NOT His plan for women in the churches.

This is a mischaracterization both of 1 Timothy, and of what I wrote. Paul clearly taught that women are not to teach men because of their role. Your view is it only applies to men that agree with all of the woman's understanding of all doctrines. If you have a woman forcing her doctrine on a man who believes Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, knows that Christ/Messiah died as a Passover sacrifice for his sins, knows Jesus is LORD, and is sitting on a throne at the right hand if God, ready to return to judge the living and the dead at any time, how is it compatible with 1 Timothy for a woman to try teach that man doctrine ? It is clearly a violation of 1 Timothy. It doesn't mean a woman cannot talk. It doesn't mean she cannot learn. It doesn't mean she cannot teach women and children. It means she cannot teach men, and remain true to Sola Scriptura.

[af_vet_1981]

Second, admission to the canon is not up to either private individuals like ourselves OR to religious institutions. The word of God is self-authenticating, and has always been recognizable to the people of God as a whole. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice; another they will not follow." That principle is true because Jesus said so, and it has never stopped operating.

Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

• are you claiming all the churches immediately recognized Jesus' voice in every scriptural book eventually admitted to the Canon ? I thought James and Revelation lagged, among others.
• Neither Esther nor Song of Songs mention God. I can see the argument for Esther because Mordechai was a Jew who prophesied to Esther; preservation of the Jewish people/Zionism, and faith by works are evident here.

In my Bible, there's no such thing as being "off the clock" for God. If you are a believer, these are the universal qualities we must have. And as I said before, they can't be manufactured by rule-keeping. They come from our inner life with the Spirit of God, or we just don't have them. So if we DO have the Spirit of Christ, we are never off that clock. Thank God.

that was my point, and I used that expression to point it out; glad you concur

[Springfield Reformer]

Many lost religionists profess everything you just stated, yet are as lost as can be. We do not assume anyone still entangled in the Roman idolatries to be saved, though in some sense that is possible through innocent ignorance, which is not an easy thing to assess online.

As for mischaracterizations, I assure you there is no malice in what I am saying, but it represents my true read of both Scripture and your own positions. I am fallible and make no claim otherwise. But I cannot escape the impact of both the specific Ephesian context of Paul’s teaching, and the clear counterexamples that present a practice, sanctioned by Paul, that does not square with your absolutist approach to that passage. If I were to accept your position, I would also have to accept a contradiction in Scripture. I don’t accept that God’s word has any real contradictions, so I cannot accept your interpretation, especially because alternatives are available which do no violence to the inerrancy of Scripture.

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

Many lost religionists profess everything you just stated, yet are as lost as can be. We do not assume anyone still entangled in the Roman idolatries to be saved, though in some sense that is possible through innocent ignorance, which is not an easy thing to assess online.

this makes my point.
1. people are involved in sectarian war, strife, and contention and refuse to identify their church or sect, which is an indication of a cult, not evangelism. Evangelism applied when someone does nt know, or denies, that Jesus is Christ and LORD (Apostles Creed covers the essentials of the faith).
2. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
3. 38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40For he that is not against us is on our part. 41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

As for mischaracterizations, I assure you there is no malice in what I am saying, but it represents my true read of both Scripture and your own positions. I am fallible and make no claim otherwise. But I cannot escape the impact of both the specific Ephesian context of Paul’s teaching, and the clear counterexamples that present a practice, sanctioned by Paul, that does not square with your absolutist approach to that passage. If I were to accept your position, I would also have to accept a contradiction in Scripture. I don’t accept that God’s word has any real contradictions, so I cannot accept your interpretation, especially because alternatives are available which do no violence to the inerrancy of Scripture. Peace, SR

I attribute no bad intent on your part. I understand you as trying to harmonize the Scriptures to conform to the certain culture and practice of some Evangelicals, although I'm not sure Fundamentalists would ever embrace those listed cessationist and feminine role positions in today's churches. They would hand the baton to their husband, a man, and they would not hide their affiliation category. I neither regard my position as absolutist, although it is true because the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote it and God included it in the Canon (cannon ? :)) of the holy catholic apostolic church. It is limited, with respect, women are not supposed to teach men regarding doctrine, except as an example by their good works. It doesn't forbid women teaching men how to skydive.

[Springfield Reformer]

people are involved in sectarian war, strife, and contention and refuse to identify their church or sect,which is an indication of a cult, not evangelism. Evangelism applied when someone does nt know, or denies, that Jesus is Christ and LORD (Apostles Creed covers the essentials of the faith).

I believed all that and more. At least theoretically. But I was lost and under the power of Satan. If I had not been evangelized by a group of young believers, both male and female, who responded to God's call in confronting me with my true state, I might well have never come to Christ in the only condition He would accept me, empty-handed.

So I understand that you may see this as an in-house debate. We do not make that assumption. You are free to assume that if you wish. But in the absence of an FR synodical authority, I do not see how it is reasonable to impose that view on anyone else. Hence my characterization of this environment as a kind of public thoroughfare.

Furthermore, I and many others here have freely acknowledged our denominational perspective. However, some have wished to stay away from the trap of getting tangled up with sprinkling versus immersion, or smoking versus no smoking, or any number of lesser distractions from the main event, which is always, "Ye must be born again." I can appreciate that reluctance, given the polemic hostility of this environment. You realize the relative serenity of our discourse is the exception and not the rule. Why add vulnerabilities on petty things when its already so tough on the main things? So I thing your concerns for crypto-cultism are, for the most part, unfounded.

Peace,

SR