1John 5:1 regeneration before faith

Carbon

Well-known member
So let's take a closer look at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak (λαλεῖν), but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak (λαλεῖν) in the church.”

In chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, just three chapters before the supposed restrictions on women speaking in the church, Paul gives women instructions on how to pray and prophesy in the church assembly (1 Corinthians 11:5). One can pray silently, but prophesy is always audible. If Paul instructed women on how to prophesy in the church, he did not expect them to be silent. It is illogical to suggest that Scripture requires women to be silent in the church just moments after instructing women on how to prophesy in the church.

So what's going on?

Keep in mind, for the first time women were allowed to participate in the church service. They were no longer relegated to the balcony, hidden behind a curtain. They were on the main floor. Therefore, their common practice of talking or chattering amongst themselves had become a distraction to the service. That's why Paul says that “if they [women] want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home”.

This all coincides with the fact that λαλεῖν is translatable to talk, which becomes a disruptive chatter to those presiding over the service.

The shackles that Reformers are still trying to impose on women is broken!
Your not a bible teacher obviously. So why would I listen to you? And your also carrying this to far.
Is there a point your trying to prove in this thread? Am I missing something?
 

Synergy

Well-known member
The secular Women's Liberation movement is forcing church leaders everywhere to distinguish carefully between attitudes toward women derived from customs and traditions of the past (often strongly macho-dominated) and what the Bible actually teaches and what the early church actually did.

This is from Ray C. Stedman One of the best teachers ever.

Thank you for that information. I agree with what Ray Stedman wrote. He sounds logical and fair.

I'd like to just mention something on the side concerning discussions between a secular group/person and a religious group/person. It is very important that they both start with a common criteria/goal for arriving at agreements between themselves. Personally, I would say the quest for human dignity is a common criteria/goal, as a start at least. The American Declaration of Independence refers to human dignity and attempts to bridge the secular/religious divide, but it's not enough. We need much more work to be done in this area.
 

HealTheLand

Active member
So let's take a closer look at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak (λαλεῖν), but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak (λαλεῖν) in the church.”

In chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, just three chapters before the supposed restrictions on women speaking in the church, Paul gives women instructions on how to pray and prophesy in the church assembly (1 Corinthians 11:5). One can pray silently, but prophesy is always audible. If Paul instructed women on how to prophesy in the church, he did not expect them to be silent. It is illogical to suggest that Scripture requires women to be silent in the church just moments after instructing women on how to prophesy in the church.

So what's going on?

Keep in mind, for the first time women were allowed to participate in the church service. They were no longer relegated to the balcony, hidden behind a curtain. They were on the main floor. Therefore, their common practice of talking or chattering amongst themselves had become a distraction to the service. That's why Paul says that “if they [women] want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home”.

This all coincides with the fact that λαλεῖν is translatable to talk, which becomes a disruptive chatter to those presiding over the service.

The shackles that Reformers are still trying to impose on women is broken!

I don't know, but that does make sense. not to mention, that without the spirit (ual)
sense of what something might mean in the Bible - we are left with the letter. the Letter ... that maketh... not alive...

not a good way to interpret Scriptures for we are not of -- the Letter -- the true Church (of Christ), but of the Spirit.

not bound by man's or woman's thinking if/ whenever it would go against the Spirit. of course I might be going over people's heads in understanding on some of this,

and it's not that the Bible isn't also for us and of truth (though it's not the Original), but according to how we 'translate' the meaning / understandings of the Bible and various things about it and from it -
one might be going by the Letter...or by

the Spirit... or both. but the Spirit leads into all truth... not the Letter - all by itself - alone (i would say).
 
Last edited:

Synergy

Well-known member
Your not a bible teacher obviously. So why would I listen to you? And your also carrying this to far.
Is there a point your trying to prove in this thread? Am I missing something?
If you read what I wrote, is there anything you take issue with or do you still agree to what Theo said concerning Paul about women teachers? You possess the free will to throw my statements into the trash bucket, if you were so inclined.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Thank you for that information. I agree with what Ray Stedman wrote. He sounds logical and fair.

I'd like to just mention something on the side concerning discussions between a secular group/person and a religious group/person. It is very important that they both start with a common criteria/goal for arriving at agreements between themselves. Personally, I would say the quest for human dignity is a common criteria/goal, as a start at least. The American Declaration of Independence refers to human dignity and attempts to bridge the secular/religious divide, but it's not enough. We need much more work to be done in this area.
What exactly did the DOI do for women and slaves at that time?
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
Your not a bible teacher obviously. So why would I listen to you? And your also carrying this to far.
Is there a point your trying to prove in this thread? Am I missing something?
Does not matter what level of teacher the poster is. They gave scripture, which made a definate point. Discuss the scripture not the poster. In the three weeks or so I have been posting I have seen we get so much dodging and demeaning of other posters instead of just responding to scripture and ideas.
So WHY is it ok for a woman to prophesy in church, if she is to always be silent?
 
Last edited:

Synergy

Well-known member
What exactly did the DOI do for women and slaves at that time?
The Founding Fathers could not resolve all issues at that time. The issues were just too embedded in the American way of life and psyche for them to be resolved immediately - with the urgency of a union against England snapping at their heels. Even if the Founding Fathers wrote in that everyone is henceforth free and equal in all walks of life, the Declaration would have never been ratified by all States and the USA would have never existed, with its democratic values and its checks and balances against autocrats and tyrannicals such as Putin of Russia and Erdogan of Turkey. The Founding Fathers were guided by a sense of reality of what could and needed to be fought for at that time and what needed to be fought for in the future. The declaration is just one step of many (Magna Carta, Constitutional Amendments, etc...) towards a futuristic full-attainment of human dignity. There is much much more that needs to be done (especially between the secular and religious communities) before we are finally there.
 
Last edited:

fltom

Well-known member
Really? So give understanding by the Spirit. LOL

It does not you had to be the Fathers. What did you call that? Oh ya, reading your theology into the text. I remember now.
You remember little

Those who understand by the Spirit in 1Cor 2 are those who receive the Spirit believers not unbelievers

Your claim that God puts his spirit in unbelievers so they may believe was shown to be an error
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
You remember little

Those who understand by the Spirit in 1Cor 2 are those who receive the Spirit believers not unbelievers

Your claim that God puts his spirit in unbelievers so they may believe was shown to be an error
Remember this that Spiritual things are revealed to us BY THE SPIRIT.

Your dumb claim that unbelievers can understand apart from the Spirit but believers cannot is silly.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
God allows us to freely exercise our will in response to his continual loving attempts to influence and draw us to himself.
Unlike the devils who possess humans and force them to do things they would not do of their own will. Mark 9:17-29
"God ALLOWS you to freely choose" ? The basis for this assertion is what?
 

Predestined

Well-known member
The Founding Fathers could not resolve all issues at that time. The issues were just too embedded in the American way of life and psyche for them to be resolved immediately - with the urgency of a union against England snapping at their heels. Even if the Founding Fathers wrote in that everyone is henceforth free and equal in all walks of life, the Declaration would have never been ratified by all States and the USA would have never existed, with its democratic values and its checks and balances against autocrats and tyrannicals such as Putin of Russia and Erdogan of Turkey. The Founding Fathers were guided by a sense of reality of what could and needed to be fought for at that time and what needed to be fought for in the future. The declaration is just one step of many (Magna Carta, Constitutional Amendments, etc...) towards a futuristic full-attainment of human dignity. There is much much more that needs to be done (especially between the secular and religious communities) before we are finally there.
Makes me think of
Monumental: In Search of America's National Treasure (Trailer)

 

Kampioen

Well-known member
Okay... Let me explain to you how pronouns work. When you talk about a person over and over, it sounds awkward to keep using his name for every reference. So once you identify a person with their name, subsequent references can be made with a pronoun, which refers to the person previously referenced:

"Peter went to the store. After that, he spent some time at the park. Then he went to get a coffee. Finally he went home."

Every mention of "he" is referring back to the same person, namely Peter. Subsequent pronouns always have the same referent, unless there is something in the text to indicate a new individual/subject is being referenced.

"Peter came to the presentation.
He is from Boston.
("He" refers to Peter.)
Peter was listening to Bill, who was speaking of investments.
He suggested a diverse investment plan."
("He" is now referring to Bill.)

Now, let's look at the verse in question:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him(1). And I will raise him(2) up on the last day.

There are two instances of the pronoun here ("him", objective pronoun). They are both referring to the same person (namely the one Jesus is discussing whether they can come or not).

There is NOTHING in the text between the first "him" and the second "him" to warrant claiming a different referent, or that there are people who are allegedly "drawn" yet are not raised up at the last day (because they allegedly do not "come"). The only reason for ASSUMING a different referent is to try to smuggle in the false teaching of "free will" to try to claim man gets to decide whether he "comes" or not, to try to defend God and place the blame on man.

Further, the Arminian misinterpretation denies the meaning of the term, "draw" ("ελκυω"). I have previously posted a word study on "draw" in English and "ελκυω" in Greek (link). There is ZERO usage of the term where somene is "drawn" but does not "come". It means "impel" or "compel".

You can't say a flame "draws" moths, unless they COME.
You can't say you "drew" the blinds, unless they were drawn.
You can't say the band "drew" a crowd, unless the crowd came.
You can't say the musketeer "drew" his sword, unless it came out of the sheath.

So not only does the Arminian interpretation DENY the meaning of the term, "draw", but there is ZERO evidence in the Bible of someone who was "drawn" but did not "come".


We don't have to "make" the verse say that, because it's what it NATURALLY means.

The Father only draws those who libertarianly seek by general or specific revelation.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Seems Jesus believed it was enablement

John 6:65 (NIV) — 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

He stated so on his commentary on John 6:44

Furether no lexixon imagines the drawing of God isc likev the drawing of amindless sword

W.E. Vine This less violent significance, usually present in helkō, but always absent from surō, is seen in the metaphorical use of helkō, to signify drawing by inward power, by Divine impulse, John 6:44; 12:32. So in the Sept., e.g., S. of S., 1:4, and Jer. 31:3, “with lovingkindness have I drawn thee1

• Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, “Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)” [New Testament Lexical Aids].

• A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature: Helkuo – “to draw or attract a person in the direction of values for inner life” attract J 6:44″ [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker].

• The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament: helkuo is used metaphorically “to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32” [William Mounce].

• Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic” [Kittel, one-vol., abridged)

• The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament: “met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44” [W.J. Hickie].

• The Complete Word Study Dictionary New testament: Helkuo – “To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force… Is used by Jesus of the drawing of souls unto Him (Joh 6:44; 12:32, to draw or induce to come) [Spiros Zodhiates]

• The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: “figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)”. [Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller]

When helkuo is examined by the best attested Greek scholarship, as used in John 6, we find that the consistent rendering does not in any way determine its usage to mean “drag” or “force”, and actually militates against that meaning altogether. Hence, the most accurate meaning of helkuo would be to draw – in the sense of God attracting and enabling people towards Christ. This fits perfectly with both chapter 6, and with 12:32, wherein all of the N.T. Greek lexicons and dictionaries collectively agree, removing any ambiguity or doubt to be considered. Of the theologians who have rendered John 6:44 to exclusively mean drag, they have demonstrated a clear lack of exegetical research and evidence to validate their conclusions. These individuals never appeal to multiple and varied lexical references; wherein, they consistently point to other verses (which we have previously cited) that categorically do not fit the context of John 6 and grossly violate the basic rules of grammar and syntax.

Further examination of the text brings us to the idea of God’s drawing upon men to be understood in the terms of irresistibility. The passage in question does not explicitly address this position, as it only states God’s will and action of drawing, without identifying the possibility of men being able to freely accept or reject God’s loving initiative to bring men unto Himself. A primary way to discover any insight into this investigation will be to see how helkuo is used in the Septuagint (LXX) in regards to YHVH’s past dealings with men in the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T). We find in Nehemiah 9:30, “Many years you lasted (helkuo) with them and repeatedly warned them by Your Spirit by the hand of Your prophets, and they did not give ear…”3 The context of this passage within the LXX reveals that YHVH consistently drew and worked to bring Israel unto Himself, but they willfully resisted the helkuo. This gives us clear precedence that the gracious drawing of God can be and has been resisted by the will and actions of men. God could have made Israel irresistibly accept His drawing grace and force them to come and obey His voice, however Scripture demonstrates that He has sovereignly set His economy up to deal with mankind by their willful cooperation to either receive or reject His drawing and longsuffering patience to bring men to Himself.

The Hebrew word from which helkuo is derived, is “masak.” Like the Greek word for draw, it has many meanings based upon its’ context. However, when it comes to YHVH specifically dealing with men, we find the same pattern which helps us to understand why the Greek lexical renderings, each by consensus, posited a gracious drawing – as opposed to the idea of men being dragged into the kingdom of God. We see it used in a clear representation of YHVH’s grace being poured out in declaring,

“I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn (masak) you with lovingkindness” (Jer. 31:3).

Brian R With Editing and correcting[\QUOTE]
THANK YOU
 

Carbon

Well-known member
If you read what I wrote, is there anything you take issue with or do you still agree to what Theo said concerning Paul about women teachers? You possess the free will to throw my statements into the trash bucket, if you were so inclined.
Why are you not getting it?
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Does not matter what level of teacher the poster is. They gave scripture, which made a definate point. Discuss the scripture not the poster. In the three weeks or so I have been posting I have seen we get so much dodging and demeaning of other posters instead of just responding to scripture and ideas.
So WHY is it ok for a woman to prophesy in church, if she is to always be silent?
First what does the posters topic have to do with the thread? Second, if the poster wants to try and teach something that isn’t biblical, start a thread on it.
Next
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
It’s crazy to think of using a secular dictionary for biblical words . Who does that , it’s what Hebrew and Greek lexicons are for not Websters .
If you don't know what an English word means, then use a dictionary to define it, but like you are saying if we have access to definitions of Hebrew and Greek words then we should consult those sources
 
Top