Replies

are you in favor of the ordination of women also

Simply put, no. Paul adduces an argument from the Post-fall condition of humanity. That is not a cultural argument, as some would posit, but a sweeping assertion of our true current condition.

However, your comment to which I reacted did not suggest an honest disagreement by Elsie, but rather a written statement of direct, willful rejection of apostolic authority. Especially biting was the idea that there was intentional selectivity of belief based on "convenience." The assertion that Elsie knowingly rejected apostolic, and therefore divine authority, is a bridge too far, and is the inescapable falsity in your accusation. You can know what he/she affirms as a belief on these pages, but God alone is the judge of whether he/she has come by that belief honestly.

I was raised among many who debated this very issue, with fine, Godly people on both sides of the debate. The argument stems from the fact that sometimes Paul appears to make a distinction between his own teaching and that for which he claims direct leadership from the Lord. See for example his discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, where he oscillates back and forth between giving his considered personal judgment versus aligning his teaching with direct commandment of the Lord. Some have taken this to suggest that Paul was deliberately giving his private opinions lower authority, a kind of optional class of teachings, but only where the distinction is set out explicitly.

I don’t happen to share that view. I would be more like you on this matter. God saw fit to put every word of Scripture in there for a reason, even if Paul recognized a distinction. But then again, Paul did recognize the distinction, and his writing it down means it’s true by virtue of being inspired. So Paul’s not wrong. There is a distinction. So I can see how some would want to honor that distinction.

And I would not see that as dishonest, or evasive of divine truth. Whereas you have asserted motive, selective disbelief based on “convenience.” If you cannot prove that motive, your assertions must be understood as false. That doesn’t mean I think you intend them to be false. I am sure you believe they are true. But they are not, according to everything I know about Elsie.

As for whether I have borne false witness against you by my hypothetical, I hope every reader here is intelligent enough to recognize it as a hypothetical, the design of which is to try and get you to hear how you are sounding to us. My assumption, which may indeed be faulty, is that if you could hear what you are saying the way we are hearing it, you might not be so eager to say such things.

As for me “suspecting” the path of your reasoning in making the accusation, I intentionally use such language to ensure I do not inadvertently engage in “mind reading.” I will always try to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to do so I simply make it clear that I am speculating. That gives you an opportunity to correct my error, without getting in too deep on accusatory language.

Bottom line, I still hold your charge against Elsie is baseless. He did NOT write what you said he wrote. You interpreted first, and then found your “selective convenience” theory to explain the gap between his belief and your own. It is an easy error to fall into. We all do it every now and then. But it is intemperate to use it in a debate context like this, where tensions are already high. What does Jesus say about the peace-makers?

Peace,

SR

God saw fit to put every word of Scripture in there for a reason, even if Paul recognized a distinction.

HMMMmmm...

Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

However, your comment to which I reacted did not suggest an honest disagreement by Elsie, but rather a written statement of direct, willful rejection of apostolic authority. Especially biting was the idea that there was intentional selectivity of belief based on "convenience." The assertion that Elsie knowingly rejected apostolic, and therefore divine authority, is a bridge too far, and is the inescapable falsity in your accusation. You can know what he/she affirms as a belief on these pages, but God alone is the judge of whether he/she has come by that belief honestly.

Elsie, who is of Wesley, volunteered that unsolicited information and asked that I show any errors in his/her denomination which I proceeded to do.
The Wesleyan Church makes a big deal out of ordaining women into all positions of ministry. It is one of their distinctives.
Local churches are organized into a network of districts with equal representation of clergy and laity at their annual conferences. Each has an elected administrator known as the district superintendent and has a district board of administration with both lay and clergy serving. National and multi-national networks are called general conferences with strong national leadership and meet every four years. The North American General Conference has one General Superintendent, Dr. Jo Anne Lyon. An ordained Wesleyan minister, Dr. Lyon is the founder of World Hope International, the official Christian relief and development partner of The Wesleyan Church.
The Wesleyan church votes to change their doctrines, as they just did on divorce (taking the Feminist view instead of the Scriptural view, and we are not talking civil divorce here, but rather New Testament divorce).
Wesleyan reasoning to ignore Paul's authority in 1 Timothy Chapter 2 taught here
It is convenient for the Wesleyan Church to ignore Paul, as their women already have the votes and exercise influence over Church doctrine; they are not going back to the Patriarchy which controlled the Church prior to their origin in Nineteenth Century and I think afsnco is correct, there will be more progressive changes to come.
Elsie was free to disavow himself of this tenet of his denomination when afsnco wrote "Every denomination that has engaged in the apostasy of women clergy has inevitably, inexorably thereafter engaged in the further apostasies of love for abortion and love for homosexuality. PCUSA being the latest example" but did not. Instead, Elsie wrote in almost immediate response "The bible PLAINILY says it's PAUL that won't allow women to teach: NOT Christ!!" Look at the capitialization. Look at the context. That is a willful denial of Paul's apostolic authority in the matter of the behavior and non-ordination of Christian women.
I understand Elsie upholding his denomination's insistence that women should be ordained to any and all offices in the church the same as a man, but it is a willful rejection of the apostolic authority of Paul in this area. In other areas where it is convenient to their doctrine and teaching, the Wesleyan Church upholds Paul's authority. In this area they deny it. It would be inconvenient for them to now oppose it as, the denomination has already chosen it, they don't have the votes to change it, and Elsie himself defends it anyway by claiming Christ did not say it, only Paul. Elsie has so far not addressed the other Wesleyan issues (divorce, abortion, and contraception) which Elsie asked me to raise with "The ONLY thing I 'recommended' was for you guys to SHOW it's error. "

Bottom line, I still hold your charge against Elsie is baseless. He did NOT write what you said he wrote. You interpreted first,

Of course I interpreted it. If I quote him directly I'll indicate so. afsnco post 12, Elsie post 16, clear as day; He clearly rejected the authority of the apostle Paul in this matter, and the clear teaching of the holy catholic apostolic church for almost two millenia, to uphold the doctrine of the Wesleyan Church.

I was raised among many who debated this very issue, with fine, Godly people on both sides of the debate. The argument stems from the fact that sometimes Paul appears to make a distinction between his own teaching and that for which he claims direct leadership from the Lord. See for example his discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, where he oscillates back and forth between giving his considered personal judgment versus aligning his teaching with direct commandment of the Lord. Some have taken this to suggest that Paul was deliberately giving his private opinions lower authority, a kind of optional class of teachings, but only where the distinction is set out explicitly. I don’t happen to share that view. I would be more like you on this matter.

It is not about being more like me on this matter. It is about standing with the Apostle to the Gentiles on doctrine. I don't stand with Paul because I like him. I stand with him because I love the LORD who chose him. There are not two sides of a debate here. There is apostasy and truth. The LORD chose Paul and gave him authority to teach the Gentiles. One either accepts or rejects his authority and teaching. I guess the ladies can vote on it ...

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: