My Pastor (Page 4): Sola Scriptura...

bodiebill

rpavich wrote:

I'm sure you will. br br I'll take truth over sub... (show quote)

Sola Scriptura

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

SteveR wrote:

It is easy to find fault and say "a woman pre... (show quote)

So you are contending that Paul pointing out to one group (as an aside in a letter) that if a missionary preaches the good news out of wrong motivations that that cancels out his multiple admonitions about not allowing women to have authority over men in a preaching capacity?

PS: They weren't preachers; they were missionaries, we are talking about Pastoring a church, the two aren't the same.

Two things in completely different contexts with two completely different subjects but you use one to cancel the other out?

I'm sorry but that just doesn't wash; that's very poor (incorrect) exegesis and not a good reason to abandon the many instances of direct instructions to not do this.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

rpavich wrote:

So you are contending that Paul pointing out to on... (show quote)

It is not optimal, and where men are available for the job I would agree with you. That is not always the case. I am merely saying that in the absence of a male preacher, if a woman steps in in the vacuum I would say that my analogy applies. However, you are right, if a male preacher is available, no vacuum would exist.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

SteveR wrote:

It is not optimal, and where men are available for the job I would agree with you.

But you are mixing apples and oranges; you are referring to missionaries, (Paul's subject) and the structure of the church (totally different subject)

You don't have a good argument to support it because of that.

Quote:

and That is not always the case. I am merely saying that in the absence of a male preacher, if a woman steps in in the vacuum I would say that my analogy applies. However, you are right, if a male preacher is available, no vacuum would exist.

See above answer.

You might feel that way but you wouldn't be aligned with God's word on the subject. (not to mention the fact that there are males available to preach, that's not the real issue here)

SteveR Loc: Michigan

rpavich wrote:

See above answer.

You might feel that way but you wouldn't be aligned with God's word on the subject. (not to mention the fact that there are males available to preach, that's not the real issue here)

Sometimes you have to use the common sense God gave you. What would be worse....to not have the Gospel preached....or to have it preached by a woman if need be? Some groups are fortunate not to be faced with this conundrum.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

SteveR wrote:

Sometimes you have to use the common sense God gave you. What would be worse....to not have the Gospel preached....or to have it preached by a woman if need be? Some groups are fortunate not to be faced with this conundrum.

So your argument is that if you think it's necessary then you can circumvent what God has plainly said.

PS: It's not the gospel preaching that we are talking about (for the 20th time) it's Pastoring a church; having authority over men...two COMPLETELY different scenarios.

You could hand wave away anything in scripture using the logic you used above.

Vietnam Vet

rpavich wrote:

So you are contending that Paul pointing out to on... (show quote)

You keep taking about exegesis, I expect you mean proof-texting in order to back up your beliefs. I might be wrong though, what Hebrew or Greek exegetical works do you use?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Vietnam Vet wrote:

You keep taking about exegesis, I expect you mean proof-texting in order to back up your beliefs. I might be wrong though, what Hebrew or Greek exegetical works do you use?

I don't mean proof texting....I mean exegesis; which is to say the method of drawing out of the text the meaning as opposed to getting your meaning from outside the text and reading the meaning INTO it. (eisegesis)

The method of interpretation I use is called the Grammatical-Historical method.

Answers in Genesis sums it up this way:

Bible-believing Christians generally follow a method of interpretation known as the historical-grammatical approach. That is, we try to find the plain (literal) meaning of the words based on an understanding of the historical and cultural settings in which the book was written. We then follow standard rules of grammar, according to the book’s particular genre, to arrive at an interpretation. We seek to perform careful interpretation or exegesis—that is, to “read out of” the text what the author intended it to mean. This is in contrast to eisegesis, which occurs when someone “reads into” the text his own ideas—what the reader wants the text to mean. In other words, exegesis is finding the AIM (Author’s Intended Meaning) of the passage because its true meaning is determined by the sender of the message, not the recipient.

This hermeneutical approach has several strengths. It can be demonstrated that the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament in this manner. Also, it is the only approach that offers an internal system of “checks and balances” to make sure one is on the right track. As will be shown, other views allow for personal opinion to sneak into one’s interpretation, which does not truly reflect what the text means.

Finally, this approach is consistent with how we utilize language on a daily basis while interacting with others. For example, if your best friend says, “I am going to drive to work tomorrow morning,” you can instantly understand what he means. You know that he has a vehicle that he can drive to his place of employment, and that’s exactly what he plans on doing early the next day.

I use Accordance for my bible software, I've studied Greek for several years though I still mostly suck, I can understand what arguments are being made but I can't read it very fluently. I know just enough to be dangerous as they say.

Other than that I use BDAG for Greek and Kohlenberger/Mounce for Hebrew but I'm not married to them...I think just using a definition and not taking into account the other issues is short sighted.

Vietnam Vet

What seminary did you study Greek at?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Vietnam Vet wrote:

What seminary did you study Greek at?

I've never been to seminary.

Why?

Vietnam Vet

rpavich wrote:

I've never been to seminary.

Why?

And which old and new testament commentaries do you have that tackle the biblical languages for you?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Vietnam Vet wrote:

And which old and new testament commentaries do you have that tackle the biblical languages for you?

Since you don't seem to have any first hand knowledge, I'm assuming you are setting me up for something...however, I'll say that I don't keep to one commentary or anything like that. I find that mostly if one keeps to the "rules" of good exegesis, looking up the meaning of words in isolation isn't a whole lot of help.

I have a few favorites though, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Holman, Butler...etc.

Vietnam Vet

Which edition of Nestle-Aland do you have?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Vietnam Vet wrote:

Which edition of Nestle-Aland do you have?

Ok, I'm done.

This isn't you asking, this is you trying to set me up for some reason to justify your wife's vocation.

have a nice day...I'm outta here before this gets any loonier.

Vietnam Vet

No doubt you do study the bible and you choose commentaries that support your beliefs. But you neither have the skill set nor the resources that enable you to do exegesis.