Search results

Womanly verses "Women/wives, do this..." are written to women (who, BTW, are not children). They do not say, "Men, get your women to do this..." Men are not graced to process those things on behalf of their women. We cannot replace the Holy Spirit for our wives (and, trust me, we really do not...

Why do we assume that, while they were prophesying? I would agree that the gift of prophecy does not confer full-time authority, but the gift by definition, imposes momentary authority.

Prophecy = authority, at least at the moment.

If you would neglect "...Your sons and daughters will prophesy,..." [Acts of the Apostles 2:17] that Paul's friend, Priscilla, taught Apollos [Acts of the Apostles 18:26], and certainly more...

(Apparently, Mike didn't know what circumcision was...)

True, but neither one can replace the Holy Spirit for the other, either, for receiving Scripture, generally, nor for receiving gender-specific Scripture, particularly.

If a person is viewing gender-specific Scripture for themselves, it is complementarianism. If they are viewing it with the goal of straightening out their spouse, it is Patriarchy/Matriarchy (even if they call it complementarianism).

(It gives "unitarian" a whole new meaning... )

(Because it shows most of his [privates]...)

As a Christian, I am not interested in fixing (secular) feminism. (All worldly coalitions have the same types of errors.) I want to be faithful to the Holy Spirit and, as He leads me, my Bible. That is completely independent of any secular feminist agenda. Even if my wife did not feel the same...

The problem with terms like "complementarianism" is that it has, at least, two common meanings, Biblical (or Pauline) complementarianism is when we seek to be faithful to gender-specific Scripture that applies to ourselves. Complementarianism is also used as a euphemism for Patriarchy [&...

If The Son Sets You Free, Faithful Heart (1990) John 8:36

Which "bolt of lightning" are you referring to?

What I meant was that Luther had to dissent and leave the Catholic Church in order to advance "Salvation by Grace, through Faith" [SbGtF]. If he would have remained, he would have been stifled. At that point, there was the ["True" or "Universal"*] Church and the Church that preaches SbGtF...

That can even be seen in The Parable of the Talents, where Jesus gave each of His servants responsibilities in accordance with their abilities [faith?].

Some tenets drive people to a religious crab-pot mentality. If Luther did not dissent, there would have been no Reformation. If the Anababtists did not dissent, there would have been no Believer's Baptism. If the principals of the Welsh Revival did not dissent (about not quenching the Spirit)...

He was the Father of the Reformation --which gave those Anabaptists a platform in the first place. He just was a little short-sighted beyond his own contributions. :(

Even non-denoms have tenets,* making them de facto denominations; they just don't have a franchise. * Some examples, Trinity, Original Sin, Salvation by grace, through faith, Infant vs. Believer's Baptism, Eternal Security vs. Conditional Salvation, Cessationism vs. Continuationism, Pre-Trib...

Now they do. Besides Catholics, Luther and the Puritans persecuted the Anabaptists back in the day, too.

That's commitment...! :confused: (I don't think that it is worthwhile to align ourselves with such in the name of "unity." Ecumenism panders to the lowest common denominator.)