Comments on: As We Begin

By: Dialogue with Robert Prater: Robert’s Comment About Progressive Dialogue, Part 1 « One In Jesus.info

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:04:38 +0000

[...] any”? I’ve certainly never said that there is no error that damns. I’ve said quite the opposite. Nor do I “exalt and glory” in “doubts and diversity.” I certainly take no [...]

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:14:03 +0000

Agreed 100%. I’ve shared the book with several church leaders around here.

By: Dan Smith

Dan Smith — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:15:12 +0000

After collecting dust on my “to read” shelf, Jack Reese’s THE BODY BROKEN finally got my attention. I’ve missed about four years of the needed butt kicking administered in this book. While not addressing any “issue” Jack sheds much needed light on the “causes” of our inability to accept differences of opinion.
I can’t recommend this book highly enough to all CoCers but especially to elders and other teachers.
Dan

By: Realizations about graceconversation.com « the7ones.com

Realizations about graceconversation.com « the7ones.com — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:47:10 +0000

[...] are a few realizations I have come to as a result of reading the comments on [...]

By: GATidwell

GATidwell — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:45:58 +0000

I was unwilling to introduce specifics as to which progressives have lost their faith in the complete truthfulness of Scripture. My silence prompted Royce to challenge me to name one.

In Jay’s post, “Not a Man-made List But a Scriptural Rationale,” he verifies that, indeed, their are progressives who reject inerrancy, and Jay was kind enough to name a specific school where such progressives may be found.

By: Pam

Pam — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:32:23 +0000

When we speak of ‘doctrine’ we are speaking about teachings. Teachings in the Bible can be a ‘cultural’ teaching or doctrine that doesn’t necessarily apply today as stated above. When I think of ‘doctrine’ concerning the gospel, to me it applies to the basic tenets of Salvation. Such as believing that Christ died for our sins, and rose on the third day, is sitting at the right hand of God, believers are to repent of their sins, commanded to be baptized, etc. All of these other things we seem to be so compelled to argue over are guidelines or good principle to help us. If they were a matter of salvation, then why didn’t God record them as He did the Law of Moses. Here we have Law for everything. In the New Testament we have principles to live by once we are Christians. Why do we want to bind these things on us as though thy were law? If that is the case, Christ never set us free and He is a liar. Free in Christ is exactly what it says.
Christ set us free from law that bind us and make our obedience impossible.
Freedom in Christ allows us to be ‘guided’ by principles, not bound to laws.
I firmly believe there can be different interpretations on how we carry out some of these principles and all be pleasing to God.

By: 4 Christ

4 Christ — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:06:01 +0000

Matt,
Where does doctrine say women without headcoverings will not be disrespectful but a women speaking will still be disrespectful?

They both were cultural issues during that time and culture today has changed on both issues.

By: Matt Clifton

Matt Clifton — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:43:34 +0000

4 Christ,

And a woman wearing a head covering today is not showing disrespect for her husband, but if she usurps his authority in the assembly today, she is being disrespectful.

God bless,

Matt

By: 4 Christ

4 Christ — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:09:34 +0000

A women without a head covering to them was seen as disrespect for her husband as it were for a women to speak not being silent. They both were seen as submission issues. They both were also cultural issues at the time of the first century.

By: Matt Clifton

Matt Clifton — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:54:25 +0000

4 Christ,

The head covering is not a symbol of authority for us. The principle being taught is that women should be in subjection to her husband. If a lack of a head covering in today’s society was a symbol of rebellion to a husband, as it was in Corinth, then yes, the head covering would be necessary. We need to apply the concept in our own time.

One preacher made this clear with an illustration. Say that in our society carrying a red purse was a symbol that a woman was a prostitute. If a woman came into the assembly carrying a red purse, she would be showing disrespect for her husband. Since it is not the case that red purses signify a prostitute, any woman carrying a red purse is merely signifying that she likes red purses.

In first century Corinth, to go without the head covering was a sign of disrespect for her husband, and a woman with a shaved head was equated with a temple prostitute. Therefore, to go around shaved or uncovered was a sign of rebellion before her husband, and thus before God. Of a woman today wore a head covering, no one would even consider that she was doing it out of respect for her husband. But to apply that passage, a woman would need to comply with what is generally understood to show respect for her husband. Wearing revealing clothing, flirting, etc., could be possible ways to show disrespect in today’s culture.

The silence commanded in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 had to do with teaching and submission. Is it still disrespectful to assume authority over a man in the church.