The BFM 2000 has good news vs. bad news.
1. Good News: “Baptist deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.”

2. Bad news: “The office of pastor is limited to men …”

WHAT?
Imposing this confession of faith on First Baptist Church of Decatur is exactly what they said would NOT be allowed.

Real Baptist had their ‘conservative’ name stolen, and being smeared as ‘moderates’ adds insult to injury.

The ‘conservative/ resurgence takeover’ made a political football of the Bible in order to gain power and control. ‘Removing Liberals’ was a smokescreen to get rid of ANYONE that was not ‘ONE OF US’.

‘ONE OF US’ have hungry egos that have a diet of changing what’s good today is not good enough tomorrow.

Instead of stealing our convention, why didn’t they start their own: ‘Legalist Convention’?

Their INTERPRETATION of the Bible fulfils Christ’s warning: “Teaching as doctrine; the commands of men.” (Matthew 15:9)

I am deeply grieved, as I have been in recent days, by the news from the Georgia Baptist Convention. One of the most Christlike and godly people I have EVER met is Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell. She is indeed a Godsend for the congregation at Decatur, and for the broader region. I pray for those who have made this decision; may the LORD Jesus melt their cold hearts.

I can think of absolutely no good reason for the inclusion of Robert White's comments "...give convention leaders discretion to refuse gifts from questionable sources, like alcohol distributors" in the closing of this article otherwise about rejection of women pastors except as a very low insult and expression of contempt toward the pastor and members of the First Baptist Church of Decater. My heartfelt sympathies go out to these people for such a disgustingly low class slap at their faithfulness and integrity as fellow Christians and Baptists.

My heart goes out to Julie, as I try to imagine what she must feel right now. I’m sure this must be an emotionally tough time. Pray for her. Although I don’t know her, I don't have any reason to doubt that Julie Pennington-Russell is a Christ-like, godly woman. Furthermore, I certainly expect that she must be a talented leader and speaker. I agree that the Georgia Baptist Convention should have met with her personally, in a spirit of love, to discuss the issue on which they disagreed. In my mind, this would have been on par with how Paul opposed Peter in person, in Galatians 2, when Paul believed that Peter was in the wrong. That being said, I wonder if FBC Decatur sat down with the Convention before calling a woman as pastor, to ask the feelings of the Convention on an issue that was CLEARLY not in keeping with the Convention’s stance on women in the pastorate. Somehow, in all of this, the Convention gets labeled as the bad guy who is “taking aim at women-led churches,” and the feminist-egalitarian agenda within the church cries that the mean ole’ Baptist are oppressing women. Then the psychologists want to chime in and say it’s because these men are afraid of women, and by this time, the riot is about to begin, as even the homosexual agenda is taking sides with the feminist agenda, chanting and holding up signs against the poor Baptist who still have the audacity to believe that God did not intend for women to serve as an elder of a church. (He also did not intend for women to be head of their own household. Eph 5:23) It’s no wonder Paul told the Corinthian men to “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” (I Cor. 16:13) If it was going to be easy to “stand firm in the faith,” Paul wouldn’t have had to remind the men to “act like men, and be strong.” Thankfully there are still entire denominations, seminaries, and churches that believe in biblical gender identities, and are not trying to manipulate texts in scripture to better fit a theological bend towards feminist-egalitarianism. Just like the Pharisees accused Jesus of being of Satan while he cast out demons, it seems the Georgia Baptist Convention is content to go on loving and respecting women, while the proud feminists (with wounded egos) call folks like them woman-haters.
(Mom and sis, I love you. Thank you for showing me two lives that are unabashed in exemplifying biblical womanhood. If only the world could know you, all arguments would be silenced.)

Brandon Durham,
It’s easy to say “With love” while destroying the autonomy of FBC Decatur in suggesting they should have asked the feelings of the Convention.

Much to the dislike of some leaders, Baptists have yet to bow to a ‘top down rule.’

It’s nice you love your mom and sis, but I wouldn’t consult them for the role of women when Jesus used a woman to ‘preach He is risen’ to his disciples.

Rex Ray,
Are you talking bad about my momma?

In reading articles like this through the formative years of my ministry, I am ashamed. This is the image that outsiders to our denomination are hearing about. Recently there was a national news report on television about LifeWay removing a magazine from the shelves because it showed women pastors on the cover. I believe the next generation will not be tolerant of this mess and the Baptist identity and denomination will become less and less important to young Christians. The BGCT this year was the lowest in attendance since 1949 for a reason.
The view that the Bible declares women should not serve as Senior Pastor is one based on poor hermeneutic. If you apply the same hermeneutic to the rest of the Bible you can no longer wear clothing that is a cotton/polyester blend, among other strange things. The Biblical arguments have been made well in other places. This is not the venue for that.
My grandfather was a VP of the BGCT one year when he had to wear a bullet-proof vest on the convention floor. He had recieved death threats at all hours of the night from SBC cronies. In 2004, Fallwell used Southwest's non-profit status chapel service to say that we could vote for the Bush of our choice. These are the kind of folks we're dealing with. A singular ideology, not swayed by truth or the autonomy of other people.
We are not called to combat them, because God loves them as much as he loves us. My grandfather spent the last half of his lifetime combating the "SBC takeover." He probably did a good thing for the BGCT at the time, but we're past that now. I knew and thought well of Pennington-Russel during my time at Baylor when she pastored Calvary in Waco. I imagine her husband is the head of their household. She has handled this attitude well in the past and will continue to do so. Her character is showed in times like these, as is the character of people in convention seats. John 13:35

I too am ashamed. I hate that the Baptist denomination is being more influenced by the world and the destructive cultural agenda of feminist-egalitarianism than by the bible. Too many of our church leaders are like basketball referees in an important game, afraid to make the right call because the home crowd is yelling and screaming at them for a different call. I hate that they feel the need to be politically correct, and to adopt a more culturally acceptable theological bent towards feminist-egalitarianism, just so the world will like us more, and not call us bad names like “sexists.” The screaming fans see how fickle they are, and they’ll keep screaming at them to get more calls their way. Before long we may just throw out the entire rule book, and ask the crowd before we make any calls. I’m thankful that some pastors are making the right call, some conventions, some churches, for the glory of God, and the benefit of the saints, including our dear sisters. We’ll probably get popcorn and beer thrown on us as we make our way to the locker room, but that’s all part of what it means sometimes to make the right call. “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” (I Cor. 16:13)

If you'll note, I claimed to have Biblical reasons, not cultural ones, for not acting in this way. You pointed out the real problem. Many folks are afraid of a liberal slide into hell. What many legalists don't take into account is that if Jesus came into their church, the Jesus of the Gospels and not of church culture, and began preaching, he would likely be asked to leave. The fact that a woman can be everything but a Senior Pastor in the 2000 creed just goes to show that the ones who draft the rules, the Senior Pastors, feel threatened. As I said, Pennington-Russel's husband is, I imagine with what I know about them, the spiritual head of the household. We must, to hold in constant with Scripture, go to one of two answers. Either women are not to be allowed to speak in church, not an option for most legalist pastor's wives I've met, or we must interpret Scripture with a proper hermeneutic. Often, the interior church culture is what inspires these sorts of ideas and not Scripture. Brandon, understand that I'm not making a personal attack, but a dialogue. I love you and all those with whom I disagree. I don't think you're the great Satan and neither am I, we're just both trying to work together as we see through the glass dimly.

Jo,
I’m flattered that you don’t think I’m the devil, but only a legalist. And yes, I did note that you CLAIMED to have biblical reasons. In the spirit of good dialogue, I’d also like to note that the devil claimed to have good biblical reasons for why Jesus should jump off the pinnacle of the temple. We both know that his use of scripture was completely wrong, but it would have made for a great show with the people, and no doubt, would have won Jesus much more popularity with the culture, had he jumped. Imagine Jesus, floating down unscathed from on high, with a flowing white gown, in the midst of the temple worship. The crowd would have instantly rushed him and hailed him their king, without all the suffering. Today we want Jesus to float down in a dress, with his nails done, to be more culturally inclusive and acceptable. Naturally the Christian feminist-egalitarian agenda claims to have biblical roots, but an honest look at this “proper” hermeneutic you keep speaking of only reveals a method of interpretation as spurious as the devil’s in the desert temptations. And I don’t think the interior church culture inspires false ideologies, as you noted. I think the devil does. The church just has a knack of being sucked into the culture. Because I love you, I want to wipe some of the dimness off the glass, so that you and others don’t get sucked in by this attack on the church, and on biblical gender identities and roles. The fact is, when you CLAIMED to interpret I Timothy 2:11 based on a “proper” hermeneutical method of consulting SCRIPTURE, what you actually did was simply defer to your own existential experience of, “most legalist pastor’s wives I’ve met.” Based on my own experience of, “most married couples I know have gotten divorced,” I could just as wildly conclude that Christians should not get married anymore, because it just isn’t a reasonable option anymore. In theory you want to believe that you are holding to scripture, but in practice, you are following a trend that is way out in left field, and you’re going to definitely need some glasses to see through the fog way out there. Come back Jo! We miss you!

Brandon Durham,
You’re good at dodging truth. You didn’t reply to Jesus choosing a woman in being the first to preach: HE IS RISEN. Instead you made a joke: “Are you talking bad about my mamma?”

What jokes might you make out of these truths?
1. Local, County, State, Nation, and World there are more Christian women than Christian men.
2. The devil doesn’t want any to preach the Gospel of Jesus. Would you agree if he could eliminate more than half the Christians that would be a good start?
3. Bill Graham said his daughter was the best preacher in his family. She was asked to speak to 800 preachers. Would you have been one of those that turned their chairs around so she saw only their backs? (Legalist are alive and well and being rude and un-Christian is nothing to them.)
4. Adam wanted to be as smart as God, Pharisees took God’s Ten Commandments and made over 600, and today some are telling God who he cannot call to preach. Women don’t have to be real smart to teach men since God did it with a donkey.

Rex,
Are you using your rex-ray vision again to see things in scripture that just aren’t there? I apologize if I offended you by not seriously addressing your response. But your use of scripture is beyond ridiculous. I didn’t feel I should dignify it with a legitimate rebuttal. I’m afraid the only Ray of hope for you is if you learn how to exegete the text instead of trying to rexegete it.

Brandon Durham,
You apologized for not addressing my response seriously, but you repeat yourself with more jokes. If you don’t believe God used a donkey to teach a man, do you believe Jesus turned down Martha’s request for Mary to do ‘kitchen work’ when he told her:

“…Mary has chosen what is best, and it will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:42 NLT)

You would have Mary washing pots and pans.

In a house with many vessels of gold and sliver (2 Timothy 2:20), you restrict women to being the trash can.

In this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

There are some senators who wished a young woman was in the kitchen instead of telling them her parents would not have been murdered if she had broken their law…that the Second Amendment was to protect us from people like them.

Wonder if she taught them anything?

As Lincoln said, “I care not for a man’s religion if his dog is not the better for it”; I care not for religion that women are not the better for it.

Hey Brandon,
The reason I left it at saying I claimed to have proper Biblical evidence was that this is not really the place for whipping our Bibles out and seeing whose is bigger. Pauline literature does not have a unitary voice on the matter. 1 Cor. 11:5 has Paul giving instructions for how a woman is to prophesy in church. Then there are Phillips four daughters in Acts 21:9.
1 Cor. 14:34-35 says it is shameful for a woman to speak in church and she should ask her husband at home if there is anything she wants to know. So as I said, we either need to disallow women from speaking at all, or use a proper hermeneutic here to rectify what seems to be a contradiction in Pauline literature. That would be a cultural response. Sometimes the women can get a little chatty, and Paul was remanding them for it. He told the women not to shave their heads because that's what the temple prostitutes at the Aphrodite temple down the street in Corinth did. Timothy had a difficult situation in his church and Paul, apostle to pastor, told him how to deal with it. Women at times have tried to overtake church. Egalitarianism is not bad, feminism or chauvanism is. Neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female. Let's not forget that Adam is dirt, and Eve is one step removed from dirt.
I actually started out my ministry with the view that women shouldn't be ministers. I have not responded to culture because culture convinced me that women were to play a lessor role in church. I responded to my in depth study of Scripture at original languages and prayer about my attitude of fear.
You talked about couples getting divorced. You're right, the household needs to have the man in charge spiritually. It is so in mine. It is probably so in Pennington-Russell's. It requires the man to step up and be that. The household and the church are not one in the same. I don't think there needs to be a universal policy of women pastors, it is a local church thing. But there are plenty of piss-poor, uncalled, male pastors out there to allow a few called, educated, women to fulfill their calling. Most of these women are not feminists, they're not trying to prove anything. They just feel a call by God to be a proclaimer of the Word.

God bless you guys.

JO1484,
Yippee, Brandon gave up. She ran up the white flag. We won! We men showed her she couldn’t teach us anything. Or did we? Since that was her point that only men were capable of being pastors!

Horrors! We used Scripture and she used jokes. She’s outsmarted us.

Hey! Maybe we won after all?

P.S.
I hope we've all glorified Jesus in our thinking in the search for truth.

Jo,
I’m glad you found a good liberal commentary to read from in the original language. I hope the author was not the distinguished New Testament Scholar, Dr. Rex Ray. Unfortunately, once again, you inevitably deferred to your own flimsy Jo Plumb-line illogic of, “But there are plenty of piss-poor, uncalled, male pastors out there to allow a few called, educated, women to fulfill their calling,” I am not yet ready to start a “Fatherhood 101” class for women at church, simply because of all the piss-poor fathers in the world. But, I do have a question for you. Hypothetically, let’s go with your new hip modern idea of a woman pastor. Heb 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men (and apparently in your commentary, as women) who must give an account.” Now, Eph 5:22-23 says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife…” What I find interesting is that you maintain a woman can be the leader of a church, yet not a leader in her own home. So, my question is, if a man is married to a woman pastor, and he is a member of the church she leads, who is in the position of authority? It seems to me that the man is obligated to submit to the woman’s authority according to Heb 13:17, and yet the woman is obligated to submit to the man according to Eph 5:22-23. It looks like a tie. Or worse yet Jo, a contradiction, and furthermore, a poor hermeneutic. Look, if a woman “feels” led to be a pastor, or to be a man, I don’t want to stand in her way. I will pray for her, and love her, and hope to God everything turns out well. But, with the mound of scriptures alone and besides church history that seem to point away from that, I do not believe the Southern Baptist Convention should apologize for sticking to a clear teaching in scripture. If churches want to be hip and cool and hire chicks to preach, perhaps you guys should form your own convention. Maybe call it the Southern Bell Baptist Convention? Jo, all kidding aside, I do love you. And Rex, you’re starting to grow on me! (like a tick on Abe Lincoln’s religious dog.)

Brandon,
Do you practice what you preach? I mean, shouldn’t you be in the kitchen or rocking the cradle instead of teaching doctrine? Here you are going toe to toe against twice the odds and doing a good job. Have you ever felt the call to preach? (I’m serious.) Are you fighting such a call based on the excuse you’re not a man?

I’m sorry Jo and you have used slang words that don’t belong in our conversation. I’m sure both of you have the vocabulary to express yourselves adequately without slang.

With that said, let me say I’m no Doctor of anything. I’ve picked cotton, bailed hay, dug ditches, and designed the tool for the Space Shuttle nose cone. I’ve worked on churches and mission trips all my life including 18 overseas trips for the SBC.

I believe Scripture is 100% true and I believe lies, ignorance, and stupidity recorded in the Bible is 100% false.

I believe the first Church Counsel of Acts 15 records the roots of Catholics by the sect of Christian Pharisees and the roots of non-Catholic by Peter and Paul. Peter preached ‘apples’: all men saved by the gift of Jesus, while James preached ‘oranges’: how Gentiles were to get along with Christian Jews. The Gentiles thought the letter of ‘oranges’ sent to them was ‘apples’ and they started obeying Jewish laws much to the horror of Paul. (Galatians 1:6, 2:3 3:2,3 4:9-11 Philippians 3:2)

You quote Hebrews 13:17 (At last you’re using Scripture instead of jokes) “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as MEN who must give an account.”

It would help if you gave the translation of your quote. The King James, New American Standard, Holman, Living, and NLT, have: “They kept watch over your souls” or words to that effect. None of them have the person as a MAN.

I don’t like the pastor having watch “over your soul” because I feel that’s a job for the Holy Spirit. On this verse, I prefer the Contemporary English Bible that says. “They are watching over you.”

I also have a problem that some interpret “They must give an account” as we are not accountable to God as long as we obey the pastor or the husband.

The Criswell Study Bible says in reference to Hebrews 13:17: “See First Peter 5:3 for a caution as to the extent of this rule.”

“Don’t lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example.” (1Peter 5:3 NLT)

In my opinion, this is telling pastors they are not the ruler of the church or even the CEO of the church. Each person is his own priest by God splitting the veil of the temple at Calvary. The pastor can ‘guide’ and ‘lead’ the church but his authority ends were the congregation’s authority begins.

Brandon, you quote Ephesians 5:22-23 as a ‘pecking order’. God intended for a marriage to be a partnership. That’s the real meaning of “submit” in this passage.

Why did you skip Ephesians 5:21: “And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

Verse 25: “For husbands, this means love your wives, just a Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her…” (NLT)

Using your definition of “submit”, I could hire people to submit for minimum wage, but how much would it cost to hire a bodyguard to take a ‘hit’? This would require a lot more ‘submitting’ than a minimum wage submit.

BTW, I hope that tick is where you can’t scratch it.

Rex,

I am impressed. 18 Outer space mission trips. That's a lot!

I was going to say the thing about authority until ole' rex ray said it. Authority is not a weapon, and it's not a final say. Someone too concerned with their own authority is not all that concerned with God's. At the same time, Rex, this is not about winning. This is a dialogue. I would have the same type of discussion with Muslims and homosexual advocacy groups. But everyone please remember, the only way a dialogue like this is worth having is when we all admit to the possibility we're wrong. It's possible God really does want men only to be pastors, and it's possible he wants to call from both genders. If you can't both admit that you don't have the angle on a God who remains a mystery even with His self-revelation, then this conversation is between folks who will never change views, regardless of evidence.
Brandon, two things...
I didn't use a commentary to get here. I do read Calvin's, Barnes' Notes, The Pulpit Comm., Interpreters Bible, Smyth and Hellwys, and Expositors. It's a broad range of views from the most rigid to the most floopy. I'm a student of the Gk, however and the language does different things. Any English translation you have is already an interpretation.
One thing you haven't addressed, though. Please go to my issue about women being silent. Paul says that women are not to speak at all in church. What do we do with that? I'm not inclined to toss it aside and ignore it in hopes of maintaining former views.

Brandon,
Do you want more impressive stuff? You know where Jesus walked on water? Well, I have (get ready for this) crawled on the bottom. I can hardly wait for your take on this.

Jo, you’re right that we can be wrong in knowing God’s will on who he wants to be a pastor. I figure I’d rather be wrong on the positive side of more preachers, than wrong on the negative side of fewer preachers.

Being in Japan on 13 trips, I’ve seen more women step up to be the pastor when men shrink from the responsibility.

You are also right about our dialogue is not about “winning.” I thought I covered this with a P.S. saying: “I hope we’ve all glorified Jesus in our thinking of the search for truth.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Brandon to reply to ‘women being silent in the church.’

The SBC uses only part of Paul’s writings in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 to reach their conclusion of men only for pastors:
“I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;”

(They omit the rest because it sounds stupid): “instead, she is to be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and transgressed, but she will be saved through childbearing, [huh?] if she continues in faith, love, and holiness with good sense.” (Holman)

Paul uses two thoughts for his human reasoning:
1.“Adam created first.” (In choosing leaders, when did God use seniority?)
2.“Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and transgressed.” (Hey! This is the same thing Adam told God, but God didn’t agree. Why would God agree with Paul?)

In the first place, Paul was not God. He did not say ‘God does not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.’

But today’s Baptist Pharisees substitute ‘God’ for ‘I’. Paul’s “I”, “I”, “I” did a lot of things that did not represent truth. From a ‘bad’ memory, he wrote the wrong number of people he baptized (1 Corinthians 1:47).

In Acts 23:6, Paul said, “I’m being tried because I believe in the resurrection of the dead…” Paul knew he was being tried because he believed in Jesus, and what he said was denying Jesus just as Peter, so he confessed by saying “…I should not have said that I’m being tried because I believe in the resurrection of the dead…” (Acts 24:20-21)

Paul’s trial under Felix left him in chains for two years. (Acts 24:27)
Paul refused a trial in Jerusalem and appealed to Caesar. (Acts 25:10-11)
Paul was ordered back to jail. (Acts 25:21)
In a private meeting, King Agrippa said to Festus, “He could be set free if he hadn’t appealed to Caesar.” (Acts 26:32) Paul must have learned of Agrippa’s words by the way of the grapevine, because neither he nor any Jews were present. This was the ‘trial’ that would have set Paul free if he had not already appealed to Cesar.

But a year later because of bad memory or whatever, Paul said, “The Romans gave me a trial and wanted to release me…But when the Jews protested the decision…I appealed to Caesar.” (Acts 28:18-19) Huh?

Well, I better stop. I fear Brandon already has an appointment for me to be burned at the stake.

Jo,
I’m glad to see you coming around, admitting that it is possible God means for only men to serve as pastors in the church. That is the first step towards the light. Women everywhere will one day thank you for not perpetuating a theology that confuses, frustrates, and demeans them in their unique God-given womanhood. In that same vein, I’m glad somebody cared enough to explain to me as a boy that I couldn’t be a fire truck! Because you asked nicely, I’m going to respond to your hang up with an issue in scripture that doesn’t fit your slant towards feminist egalitarianism. (ie. women remaining silent) Hopefully this will give you a little more courage to think critically without automatically dismissing scripture like Rex does, simply because it doesn’t fit your theology. Rex, seriously, I’m glad to see you made it back from your Outer Space Mission trip in time to nail Paul to the cross for his obviously errant and uninspired writing of the New Testament. I’m amazed God would choose someone with such a bad memory and chauvinistic blame-shifting tendency as Paul to write 2/3 of the New Testament. I’m going to change your name from Rex to Wrecks, because your theology is one wreck after another.

Coming in to relief pitch for me now is the “Council for biblical manhood and womanhood” with some commentary by Wayne Grudem. (It’s long, but not as long as the hair on your preachers!)

https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Are-the-Daughters-of-Philip-Among-the-Prophets-of-Acts

"First, it will be helpful to examine Paul's writings for information on the activity of "prophesying" and the participation of women in that activity. In 1 Cor 11, Paul discourages a woman from praying or prophesying with her head uncovered (v. 5). Later, he insists that a woman ought to have "a symbol of authority [exousian]" (v. 10) on her head. In 1 Cor 14:33b-35, however, Paul admonishes that women should remain silent in the churches. Many have been puzzled by what appears to be a contradiction in Paul's thought.33 How can he encourage a woman to pray or prophesy in chapter 11, albeit with the proviso that her head be properly covered, and then seemingly reverse himself in chapter 14 by urging women to remain silent in the churches? Some have even resorted to the argument that 1 Cor 14:33b-35 is a later addition to the text and have literally removed it from consideration.34 This is untenable. (THIS WILL LATER COME TO BE KNOWN AS THE REX RAY METHOD OF BUTCHERING THE BIBLE)

More acceptable is Wayne Grudem's suggestion that Paul is not offering a blanket prohibition on the speaking of women in the assembly in 1 Cor14:33b-35; rather, he is admonishing that women be silent during the judging or weighing of prophecies by the prophets.35 Paul tells the Corinthians that the prophets are to regulate their fellow prophets. In 1 Cor 14:29, Paul sets these guidelines to maintain order: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgement" (propētai de duo e treis laleitōsan kai hoi alloi diakpinetōsan). In 14:32 he says, "And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets (kai pneumata prophetōn prophētais huptassetai). Any believer might prophesy, if he or she has that particular gift (see 1 Cor 14:31). However, not all who prophesy are necessarily prophets. The following dictum might be fairly applied to Paul's thought: "All prophets might prophesy; not all who prophesy are prophets." The prophets have the distinct duty of weighing what is prophesied. Women may prophesy in the church, and, indeed, the fact that they do so is a fulfillment of scripture (Acts 2:17-18). They do not, however, fill the role or office of prophet within the early church, since this role requires the authoritative teaching and regulation of doctrine (see 1 Tim 2:11-12). Both the essential equality of men and women and the distinctions in their roles are rooted in the created order (see 1 Cor 11:7-12; 1 Tim 2:13-15). Far from being inconsistent, Paul's thought is imminently coherent.

We can also see how Luke follows Paul's model. Acts reflects this pattern exactly. Luke, like Paul, sees prophesying as an activity that may be done by both men and women, as they are led by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, only men serve in the role or office of prophet. This points to continuity between Luke and Paul and argues both for the traditional assertion that Luke is a protégé of Paul and that Luke's portrait of Paul is valid."

I still love you guys. Come home. The porch light is always on.

Brandon,
Jesus said you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

I look for truth in the Bible by identifying what is not God’s Word in the Bible. That is not destroying the Bible but making it stronger so we are not backed into a corner of ridged, legalist, Pharisee rules like who can teach man or be pastor.

My deepest apologizes (about ankle high) for thinking you were a woman. No wonder you’re not in the kitchen. I’ve heard speaking in tongues, but you’re the first person I know that writes in them: “propetai de duo e treis laleitosan kai hoi alloi diakpinetosan kai pneumata pro;heton prophetais huptassetai.” (That just about drove my spell-check crazy.)

Was that supposed to make us bow in awe? Paul said he’d rather hear ten words he could understand than a thousand he couldn’t.

You say, “This will later come to be known as the Rex Ray method of butchering the Bible.”

No. No. You’re too late. All the supposedly errors, contradictions, and discrepancies, have already been given a name by The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. That name is “illusions”.

Page 8 reads: “Where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Example: All translations except Holman have the ruler’s daughter dead when he meets Jesus. (Matthew 9:18) (“My daughter is even now dead” King James), but in (Mark 5:23) and (Luke 8:42) she is very sick.
Why did Holman change the dead girl in Matthew to being alive? I guess people like you, Brandon, decided this was too big of an illusion to swallow.

You mention (1Timothy 2:15). Would you please explain this verse? (“Women will be saved through childbearing.”) I’ll even say pretty please.

You say, “I’m amazed God would choose someone with such a bad memory and chauvinistic blame-shifting tendency as Paul to write 2/3 of the New Testament.”

Hey! God chose Moses didn’t he? Moses “blame-shifted” his sin to the people. Moses told the people three times that God was angry with them as the reason he couldn’t go to the promise land. (Deuteronomy 1:37 3:36 4:21)

God told Moses three times he couldn’t enter the promise land because he didn’t glorify him by having faith to speak to the rock. (Numbers 20:12, 24 27:12-14)

Brandon, how amazed are you in the ancestry God chose for his Son?

To keep you from dying from amazement, we better pray for God to check with you in his calling of pastors.

Brandon,
I wrote that it was necessary to admit we might be wrong. I have done that. I do not hold the angle on God. You have not. As such, there is little point in a dialogue. My view hasn't changed, because I've always admitted I might be wrong about any theological view. That's why theology must be written in pencil, because it is done by imperfect people who may come closer. You are not the cleaner of the glass through which we see dimly, God is.
One note on Grudem. You seem to be basing everything you have on one man's academic work. He is a scholar with a slant. The vast majority of his corpus has gone to correcting the view that women are of equal importance with men.
The phrase you use, feminist egalitarianism, is an oxymoron. You were obviously taught to use it by Grudem. Feminism is the view that women are superior, egalitarianism is the view that women and men are of equal importance. They are two very different views. Jesus was an egalitarian.
Rex, I see what you're saying, but innerantists will never be comfortable with weighting phrases differently. They reconstruct Scripture to make the whole Bible seem to say the same thing. The truth is that the Bible does not say the same thing from beginning to end. We have to let the voices from each inspired author speak for themselves. Paul thinks of salvation by grace alone, James thinks of it as done by works. No one can ever snatch us from Jesus' hand in John, but in Hebrews it is impossible to be restored if we backslide. Each voice in the canon has a relationship with God that shows us an aspect. Even in the entirety of Scripture, however, the full revelation of God is not present. God is bigger than the Bible. As John says, paraphrased, if he wrote everything about Jesus, the whole world couldn't contain the books.

Jo,
You win the humility award. You have mentioned numerous times that you might be wrong, and I appreciate that. If that was your last post, then I guess you’ll have to receive this award post-humorously. Thanks for the heads up on Grudem. I had heard that there was ONE theologian out there with a slant. I didn’t know it was him. Apparently he has a pet porpus that doesn’t like women, which I also did not know about! Oh wait a minute, how did I not know that, when according to you, Grudem is “obviously” the singular source on which I’ve based “everything.” Could it be that you are jumping to hilarious judgments that have no basis other than your wild off-based hunch? Humble yet rashly hypercritical…that’s an oxymoron. I’m going to have to take that award back. As far as Jesus being an egalitarian, I think his 12 co-ed disciples certainly lend strength to that argument. I’m mostly glad you guys were both at least willing to admit that you believe the bible is errant. I don’t see the need to dialogue any further either, not when the Bible apparently has as much authority in the matter as Moby Dick. Send me your addresses and I’ll send you both some erasers for Christmas.

Brandon,
In the verse you quoted, you still haven’t answered the question of how women are saved through childbearing in (1 Timothy 2:15).
You’re too late with the erasers for Christmas as the Holman Bible has already used them in changing the dead girl to being alive in (Matthew 9:18).

I suppose you stay well supplied with erasers as you use them on people’s replies as if there are no questions to answer. Or do use the Chicago Statement for Inerrancy philosophy that questions to you are only ILLUSIONS?

Jo,
I thought your ‘Last Post’ was the best I’ve read in a long time. You are right in saying “God is bigger than the Bible.”

God’s Word spoke the world into existence and not the Bible. Some want to make the Bible equal to God and making the BFM the doctrinal guideline for interpreting the Bible would raise the BFM higher than God. Having “No other Gods” includes the Bible.

As chaff is separated from grain by the wind, the words of man are separated from the Words of God by the Holy Spirit.