Pastoral Restoration Craze

What does ANY of that have to do with biblical realities? Yes, when you read the feminized versions of the Bible that the liberal denominations out there tout to their blind followers, it will indeed make people think the Bible is in favor of women in leadership within the body of Christ, which is a false doctrine. It's really just that simple. I don't give a rat's petoot what goes on in some store or other secular business. That has no bearing on biblical truth.

MM

You should read the Bible more. Deborah would have your hide.

Sorry, but I refuse to read your liberal version of the Bible. It's far too corrupt.

You might sharpen your reading comprehension skills some by reading what I actually said in that other post.

MM

Liberal? Deborah took control in the King James version.

Yes, your liberal ideologies are showing very clearly. Taking the one exception of a judge from the OT, and superimposing that over onto the clear teachings of the NT against women holding positions of doctrinal authority in the body of Christ, that literally drips the goo and stench of liberal theology.

You're outclassed here to think that you can pull this kind of stunt and get away with it with such ease. The liberal ideologies from which this crap came from is as worthless as the used toilet paper flushed down the toilet. That the Lord made an exception because the men at that time chose to be spineless, that's no reason to assume that same phenomenon upon the body of Christ today. There are more than enough able men who are giants in the faith to step up when needed. We today are not at all living in the same type situation as they were at that time.

We see enough of this liberal trash on Sunday morning TV from the local denominations that, because of their liberal leanings, are no more than reflections of the trashy, lost world around us who have no desire for truth.

MM

Oooooh you ARE going to be fun!

If you think I'm liberal, you are going to get a severe shock when you meet some of the other people on this forum.

I'm actually very conservative, almost alarmingly so. I've never fired a weapon, but in all other ways I am pretty much the stereotype of conservative.

Priscilla. You're forgetting about priscilla. Then there's euodia and syntyche, lydia, phoebe. Lots of prominent women in the early church. Kinda makes me wonder how the new testament compares to other literature of that era when it comes to female characters.

If I am in great error here, please forgive me but I believe mm was simply saying woman ministers are capable of error as well as the men are, not attacking their role here in this age.

No, that last sentence made it very clear how he feels about female pastors.

I was actually agreeing with him right up until that last line.

And Eunice, yes I know. But Deborah was one of the most memorable, and one of the most take charge figures. And I didn't want to flood the market. Also I wanted to keep them in reserve in case I needed them for a future comment.

So, to clarify, you took issue with my saying that women are not biblically qualified to serve in doctrinal teaching authority within the Church. Is that correct? This is not about ability, but about what is allowably portrayed from within scripture. Women are no less intelligent than men in an ability to teach, but Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, disallowed it by revelation from the Lord.

So, where are you on that? If you're in favor of women in doctrinal authority within the Church, then that is liberal in origins and foundation.

If you pride yourself as "conservative," then why take issue with a stance against women in doctrinal teaching authority over men...if that is your position?

MM

Additional clarification:

The institutional model is a whole different creature, in that it is organized into an organization rather than an organism.

See the difference?

As an organization, and with ties to the Government that most of them have by way of 501 c3 directives and constraints, they are an extension of secular, governmental allowance and ties.

As such, man-made organizations are therefore free to do whatsoever they desire, even worshipping Satan if they so please, and embracing all manner of unbiblical doctrines and practices of choice.

The body of Christ, on the other hand, is not defined by ties anyone may think to superimpose upon that living body. The crappy institutions out there are built upon, and are therefore dependent upon, money. The body of Christ, on the other hand, is not defined by nor built upon the foundation of money.

So, when some man-made organization out there hires some woman to lead them in doctrinal authority, they are independent of biblical constraints and definition. They are doing their own thing. Nobody outside of them can tell them what to do, other than the government. They can thumb their noses at the Bible all they want, which most do these days, and define their values, doctrine and leadership in whatever way they want.

No woman can invade the body of Christ on this earth by practicing that which is opposed to scripture. Some of the body of Christ populates the institutional model, with many of the others on their way to Hell. That's all on them. But the living body of Christ is not corrupted in any way, although institutionalism is indeed corrupt in many ways. The Gospel of Grace is not defined by institutionalism, nor is the Kingdom gospel.

MM

So you are also against church organizations?

That's definitely on brand for you. Fits right in with all the other stuff you said.

That has been discussed to death in sooooooooooo many threads. Short version is, when people use Paul's statement to say women should never be pastors, they take that scripture out of context and twist it.

Long version is much too long to get into here. And I have no desire at all to rehash what is already been hashed many times.

You sure seem to enjoy putting words in other people's mouths (so to speak) to try and bolster your own stance. I never said I was against the institutional model. Please sharpen your reading comprehension skills by reading and responding to what I actually said.

That's another way of avoiding what I actually said. Liberals the world over have twisted and corrupted scripture for many decades now, and so this is nothing new in the repertoire of doctrinal melodies of cacophony. Even charismatics like Smith Wigglesworth would be downright proud of you...

MM

Additionally, it's not only Paul's words on that, it's also the Lord's own ways as demonstrated through the priesthood within Israel as shown in what you call your OT scriptures.

So, the small hand full of women you point at in the NT, elevating them in your own minds to high and prominent places of leadership, go for it. Believe whatever you want. The best of all men and women are those who serve in the capacity the Lord laid down, and your warped theologies will never change any of that.

There was at least one woman pope over the RCC (although they deny history on that, which is meaningless), and that's fine. The RCC is also man-made, just like all your "churches."

MM

Man you really get a kick out of peeing all over what everybody else does.

It's a wonder you have time to do anything yourself. It's a wonder you dare to do anything yourself, for fear of anybody criticizing you the way you criticize everybody else.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the issue.

Some pastors behave so egregiously that I don't think that any discerning congregation members would have them be a pastor or that they could in fact pastor anyone.

However, that's not to say that all have "fallen" so far that they couldn't be restored. Or that they didn't behave poorly BEFORE they became believers but are successful pastors today.

Sampson is a story of a Pastor/Judge who "fell" but then became faithful for 25 years before he "fell" again. But then God forgave him and he sacrificed himself for Israel while killing thousands of the enemy.

There's obvious reasons to restore a pastor and then less obvious. We don't want to restore a Child Molester....but maybe a murderer? Maybe someone who incited riots to break out. Maybe a con artist....maybe.

You may not be aware of this, but there are, like, 17,000 other things you could be doing instead of insulting people on an internet forum. And that's just a very, extremely conservative estimate.

You could eat a nectarine. You could scratch a dog behind the ears. Play a video game. Read a book. Watch a TV show, from just any era of TV that has already happened. Go for a bike ride. So many things you could be doing right now.

Me, I just got through with a church fall festival. Many good pies, many crock pots full of chili. Lots of people talking, lots of children playing all kinds of different games. It was a blast. Yes I know you somehow hate my church, even though you have never been to it. They are still good people.

Now I am going to wash dishes and then I am going to either play mechwarrior five or lie down, depending on how I feel after I get through with dishes.

Maybe you could try listening to stand up comedy on YouTube. Assuming you have internet access, it would be free. And it's usually a lot of fun. It would be something better to do than insulting people online.

Actually, I started out talking about man-made, religious institutionalism, not about you. When you step in front of a camera, and then complain about being photographed, that's not an image enhancing thing to do.

MM

Good point.

However, that's not to say that all have "fallen" so far that they couldn't be restored. Or that they didn't behave poorly BEFORE they became believers but are successful pastors today.[/QUOTE]

True. The only foundation for prerequisites from the perspective stated in the OP are those outlined within scripture. When they compromise those, that is when they have no business behind a pulpit.

Once Sampson disqualified himself as a judge, at the point he went too far, in the eyes of the Lord, it wasn't until he was ready to bring down the stone structure upon himself and those in attendance that the Lord restored his strength. That was his last breath.

I once served under a scumbag preacher, David, who landed himself in prison for laundering money they handed over to him. He laundered through his institution money from federal agents he thought was drug cartel monies from Central America. He lied under oath when claiming that his wife had no knowledge of what he was doing, which she absolutely did with her padding the offering plates with that money.

Getting scared and wanting to get away, he even ran to the West coast right before his sentencing. They were just about to catch up with him when he gave himself up. They then set him down and told him that if he continued to fight them through appeals, they would charge his wife Tammy who lied to them, but whom they knew had also helped him in his laundering scheme, they threatened to take her down along with him, sending their children to foster care.

So, he chose to not appeal and serve the full ten year sentence. He is now back behind a pulpit of charismatic nonsense of the stripe that he parsed out, misleading a new group of people as his following, and working his way back into a larger facility every few years. He has no business behind a pulpit, but institutionalism, which is not under elders of biblical caliber, pushes men like him to the forefront and limelight. positions they enjoy, and institutionalism has that right.

What's even worse is that, right before he ran prior to sentencing, he had the audacity to stand before his congregation and blame God for allegedly having put him in that situation! He clearly, being a liar, and daring to call that wife of his "pastor Tammy," all that filth on open, public display for all to see and hear, it was sickening. The institutional model is the only thing that will have trash like him and his wife as their leadership, along with his trashy following. I hope he didn't raise up trashy kids like him and his wife. Sometimes trash begets trash.

So, generally speaking, the only thing I stand apposed to is the false idea that the institutional model is God-breathed rather than man-made. History bears out to us just how man-made the institutional model really is by comparison. Some are so deeply immersed in that model, having never really partaken of a true fellowship, defend that model as if it were God-breathed, thinking that they are experiencing biblical fellowship while looking at the backs of other people's heads, with some even attending cell groups and Bible studies, also thinking that those band-aids are what fellowship is all about.

How quaint indeed. The day is soon to come when all the institutions will either bow their knee to culture and government demands for conformance, or they will close their doors under the tax burdens, fines placed upon them, and perhaps even violence and destruction of their communal property. Camela is just the kind of person to start that trend once she is cheated into office next month. The illegitimately restored pastors will become the friends of the new, world-wide, ecumenical religion soon to come...

Thanks for sharing.

MM