Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would I need to refer to something written by John MacArthur to clarify a Biblical teaching? I thought you guys were the ones who were so big on "no authority outside the Bible" and that "Scripture interprets Scripture"...??
Especially from someone who diminishes the Blood of Christ as a symbol. I have not personally investigated these claims, but if they are true, then John MacArthur is playing both sides, and neither stand for truth.
You're hypothesizing, Fundamentalist. There is nothing that states those women were being disruptive. These other verses you refer to....where are they?
It's called systematic theology. (1 Corinthians 11:5) "5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."
Paul's only problem is that women should cover their head when they speak.
One can safely conclude that this is correct because of all the headaches Paul received from the church of Corinth; women and men. They were sort of like mystics
aquila, I said I agree with what MacArthur teaches, and since he can explain much better than I, I provided you with the resource. I never said we cannot use studies to help us learn. And I didn't say MacArthur was an authority outside the Bible. He is a teacher of the Word. Why go to church if we are not open to teaching?
Those "studies" are the ideas according to another man. You clearly think of him as an "authority" by the very fact that you "agree" with him and call him a "teacher"....which, I might remind you, is something Jesus forbade. (See Matthew 23.) Apparently it's okay for you fundamentalists to call another man "teacher", but you guys dog Catholics for referring to a priest as "father". You're referring to a "teacher"...an "outside source"...to interpret Scripture for you, and you admit that when you say he explains it better than you.
I think it's a bunch of HOGWASH that you guys come down on Catholics for doing the same things you yourselves do. The difference is, you refer to a man's ideas that formed centuries after the start of the church. But somehow you think the teachings of the Catholic church which have been handed down through the ages are somehow wrong.
You're such hypocrites. And yes, I realize I may incur an infraction for saying that. But it's the truth.
Especially from someone who diminishes the Blood of Christ as a symbol. I have not personally investigated these claims, but if they are true, then John MacArthur is playing both sides, and neither stand for truth.
Because I had just found out about this, and you can bet I WILL investigate the sources. No more so, than you should as well, since you hold him in such a lofty and esteemed position.
It's called systematic theology. (1 Corinthians 11:5) "5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."
Paul's only problem is that women should cover their head when they speak.
One can safely conclude that this is correct because of all the headaches Paul received from the church of Corinth; women and men. They were sort of like mystics
Is that all.....1 Cor. 11:5...?? Where does it state the context of Paul's words have anything to do with a woman in church? It simply states that when a woman prays or prophesies, she is to do it with her head covered. (I wonder if that means a short-haired woman is forbidden from praying unless she puts a covering over her head...?? Short hair is so popular on women these days, yet the Bible speaks against that also. Funny how so many short-haired women go to church and pray. Where's your "literal" interpretation now, Fundamentalist?)
I'm sure, no doubt, that many things take place even in YOUR church that are forbidden in the Bible. And no one probably bats an eye about it because some outside source/teacher/authority has interpreted the Scriptures for you. So spare me the "no authority outside the Scriptures" routine. It's bogus.
Those "studies" are the ideas according to another man. You clearly think of him as an "authority" by the very fact that you "agree" with him and call him a "teacher"....which, I might remind you, is something Jesus forbade. (See Matthew 23.) Apparently it's okay for you fundamentalists to call another man "teacher", but you guys dog Catholics for referring to a priest as "father". You're referring to a "teacher"...an "outside source"...to interpret Scripture for you, and you admit that when you say he explains it better than you.
I think it's a bunch of HOGWASH that you guys come down on Catholics for doing the same things you yourselves do. The difference is, you refer to a man's ideas that formed centuries after the start of the church. But somehow you think the teachings of the Catholic church which have been handed down through the ages are somehow wrong.
You're such hypocrites. And yes, I realize I may incur an infraction for saying that. But it's the truth.
aquila, you need to check your attitude. You are flaming us for no reason and none of us have attacked you. We have merely tried to answer your questions as you have asked them.
Just because I agree with JM, or any other preacher or teacher for that matter, does not mean I claim they are an authority outside the Bible. They are part of the Body of Christ just like I am. God uses men to prophesy Scripture. He uses men to teach His Word. I used the source because he does state it more clearly and in more detail than I can. There is nothing wrong with that. Why do I need to reinvent the wheel every time I pass along information? The information is there. You asked what fundy thought about women speaking in the church, and I provided you what I thought per JM's study.
The difference between this and the Catholic church is that the CC does proclaim authority outside the Bible. They claim the Church is the authority, and they use Catechisms to further that authority. We state the only authority is found in the Word of God!
I suggest you check your heart, because it is bleeding anger and bitterness. I will still pray for you regarding this struggle of yours.
You asked what fundy thought about women speaking in the church, and I provided you what I thought per JM's study.
Isn't that the basis for 'religion' and division? Why answer a question on behalf of someone else, or in their place? Does that make sense, as this is what EVERY person does when interpreting scripture.
Isn't that the basis for 'religion' and division? Why answer a question on behalf of someone else, or in their place? Does that make sense, as this is what EVERY person does when interpreting scripture.
Seriously? I didn't know I had to ask permission to offer my thoughts in this forum. You certainly haven't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You certainly haven't.
