Saddleback Church kicked out of the Southern Baptist Convention

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

5 hours ago, SureWord said:

Interestingly, the 12 apostles were all men. 

Yes, and they were all Jews too.

The fact that Jesus never chose a female apostle cannot be used as a conclusive guide for only selecting male church elders, for He also never chose a gentile to be among the twelve, and yet we have gentile elders.

Women were uneducated in Jesus' day, with less training than even the fishermen Jesus chose. Males were trained in the Scriptures during childhood far more than females. Women were socially restricted in ways that would take generations to change (not too unlike Afghanistan). Also, culturally, men were listened to more than women were.

Having gentiles or women as the main apostolic witnesses to all He said and did would have been untimely and would have frustrated more than helped the cause. In short, He chose Jewish men simply because they had the cultural access needed to speak in the Temple and synagogues that neither women nor Gentiles had.

Jesus’ approach toward women was very radical and would help pave the way for their eventual full emancipation and participation. He began ringing changes by teaching women both publicly and privately and commissioning them with messages to share with men and women, none more profound than the announcement of the resurrection which He gave to Mary Magdalene to share with the apostles.

The full outworking of God’s principles toward women has its foundation in Christ. Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Edited June 1, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
added: and yet we have gentile elders

[Jim_Alaska]

4 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Hi Jim,

Many interpret 1 Timothy 2:11-13 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 differently.

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-13:

At the beginning of the letter, Paul says that he had requested Timothy “to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul addresses one of these different doctrines, the idea of female religious superiority. It was the prevalent belief in Ephesian religion that man came from a woman deity and subsequently sinned. Consequently, men were to be subject to women teaching them. This idea had apparently infiltrated into the local church.

Paul’s instruction corrects this. He tells Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11). This correction, describes the proper demeanor in which both men and women should learn. Except, in this case, it was evidently the women who needed it.

“Let the woman learn” was huge progress in that women were often uneducated and relegated to the sidelines of life, including among the Jews. “[I]n silence” suggests an environment conducive to learning. And, “with all subjection” is a call to appropriate Christian behavior. This is not unlike Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Here Paul is addressing the cult religion in Ephesus that taught women were the source of truth. (See 1 Timothy 2: Why Does Paul Tell Women To Shut It?). Prohibiting the exercise of authority over one another is not foreign to Christianity. Consider Jesus’ prohibition on disciples having authority over one another in Matthew 20:25-27.

“but to be in silence” suggests an attitude toward learning. It is not a strict prohibition from any interaction. Acts 2:17-18 says, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” Silence would prohibit women from participating in Paul’s instruction in Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” See also Ephesians 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”

Paul goes on, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13). Paul corrects a false teaching that man came from a woman deity by stating that Adam was formed first and then Eve. He doesn’t do this in order to place Adam over Eve but to rectify the false teaching. He continues to dismantle the false teaching, saying that “the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Paul was not prohibiting women from teaching men or from speaking God’s word with authority. He was simply bringing wayward thinking in line with the equality that should exist in the body of Christ.

Concerning 1 Tim. 3:1-7:

It seems that Paul prohibits women from eldership in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (and Titus 1:5-9), which refers to the need for “bishops” (also called “elders” in Titus) to be “the husband of one wife.” However, one would have to prohibit single men and widowers too, for they are not “the husband of one wife” either.

Furthermore, gender neutrality is evident in 1 Timothy 3:1. It reads, “This is a true saying, If a man (Gk. tis – anyone) desire the office of a bishop, he (not in Gk.) desireth a good work.” The translation of “man” is not incorrect if understood in the way it is used in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

In describing the requirements for elders (and deacons), Paul focuses on the typical candidate of his time, a spiritually sound and experienced married man with children. “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim. 3:2-4). Though he does not mention single men, widowers, childless married men, or women, he is in no way excluding them.

Paul returns to gender neutrality in 1 Timothy 3:5.  “For if a man (Gk. tis –anyone) know not how to rule his (not in Gk.) own house, how shall he (not in Gk.) take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5).

Such an interpretation is in keeping with our redemption. In Christ, we are restored to the equality seen at creation (Gen. 1:28) because the curse, “he shall rule over thee,” that came at the Fall (Gen. 3:16) is ended at the cross. For, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28).

Even if Paul had males in mind for elders when writing to Timothy, we need to keep in mind that he was not writing a manual, but a letter for an occasion. Paul was likely being descriptive of elders and deacons as males, for this was where the church was generally at socially, but this was not necessarily prescriptive for the entire church age. For Paul also wrote concerning slaves and slave owners, and yet we do not take what he wrote as an endorsement of slavery.

I find it quite ironic that you, as a professing Christian, would attempt to explain away literal Scripture with your own opinions. The Holy Spirit was not wrong or in error when He inspired words and phrases as He did.

As for me, I choose to believe Scripture rather than your interpretation of it. This is especially relevant when your supposed interpretation includes words such as: "likely, apparently, evidently, It seems, not necessarily."

How about this; can you provide Scriptural proof of your assertion that, "he shall rule over thee, is ended at the cross?" Or how about: "gender neutrality is evident,"

You seem to rely heavily on extra-biblical interpretation. In plain words, according to you, your understanding supersedes plain, literal, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

8 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I find it quite ironic that you, as a professing Christian, would attempt to explain away literal Scripture with your own opinions. The Holy Spirit was not wrong or in error when He inspired words and phrases as He did.

As for me, I choose to believe Scripture rather than your interpretation of it. This is especially relevant when your supposed interpretation includes words such as: "likely, apparently, evidently, It seems, not necessarily."

How about this; can you provide Scriptural proof of your assertion that, "he shall rule over thee, is ended at the cross?" Or how about: "gender neutrality is evident,"

You seem to rely heavily on extra-biblical interpretation. In plain words, according to you, your understanding supersedes plain, literal, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.

I also choose Scripture above all else. My "opinions" are interpretations that are consistent with the text and historial occasion of 1 Timothy, which are essential for the context. There is also plenty of biblical evidence in Acts that shows a fervancy for the religion of Artemis in Ephesus. This was the context in which the gospel went to this city and that Timothy found himself.

More importantly, my interpretations are congruent with the other Scriptures I gave that speak of the redemption found in Christ. 

As requested, here's proof that "he shall rule over thee" ended at the cross:

Creation shows God's original intention for the man and woman. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen. 1:27-28). Before the Fall they were co-rulers.

After the Fall, God changed things, saying to the woman, "he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3:16). Like thorns on roses, and pain in childbirth, "he shall rule over thee" became the fallen inclination of men toward women.

However, now, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3:13). Consequently, the equality that was lost has been restored for those in Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).

Spiritually, those who are born again are made completely new. At Christ's return, we'll experience the full redemption purchased on our behalf at the cross, seeing fully and taking on physical immorality. Until then, we are instructed to be "transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom. 12:2).

Christian men should renew their thinking and act according to the redemption of men and women to being co-heirs once again.

The restoration to male and female equality through Christ is implied when Paul says "that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:16-17).

1 Peter 3:7 says, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Christ is able to restore this behavior to men so that they can begin to consistently treat women with the equailty that existed before the Fall.

The gender neutrality of 1 Timothy 3:1 and 5 is found in the Greek term tis., which is translated as "man," but has the meaning "anyone."

[BrotherTony]

9 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Hi Jim,

Many interpret 1 Timothy 2:11-13 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 differently.

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-13:

At the beginning of the letter, Paul says that he had requested Timothy “to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul addresses one of these different doctrines, the idea of female religious superiority. It was the prevalent belief in Ephesian religion that man came from a woman deity and subsequently sinned. Consequently, men were to be subject to women teaching them. This idea had apparently infiltrated into the local church.

Paul’s instruction corrects this. He tells Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11). This correction, describes the proper demeanor in which both men and women should learn. Except, in this case, it was evidently the women who needed it.

“Let the woman learn” was huge progress in that women were often uneducated and relegated to the sidelines of life, including among the Jews. “[I]n silence” suggests an environment conducive to learning. And, “with all subjection” is a call to appropriate Christian behavior. This is not unlike Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Here Paul is addressing the cult religion in Ephesus that taught women were the source of truth. (See 1 Timothy 2: Why Does Paul Tell Women To Shut It?). Prohibiting the exercise of authority over one another is not foreign to Christianity. Consider Jesus’ prohibition on disciples having authority over one another in Matthew 20:25-27.

“but to be in silence” suggests an attitude toward learning. It is not a strict prohibition from any interaction. Acts 2:17-18 says, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” Silence would prohibit women from participating in Paul’s instruction in Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” See also Ephesians 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”

Paul goes on, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13). Paul corrects a false teaching that man came from a woman deity by stating that Adam was formed first and then Eve. He doesn’t do this in order to place Adam over Eve but to rectify the false teaching. He continues to dismantle the false teaching, saying that “the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Paul was not prohibiting women from teaching men or from speaking God’s word with authority. He was simply bringing wayward thinking in line with the equality that should exist in the body of Christ.

Concerning 1 Tim. 3:1-7:

It seems that Paul prohibits women from eldership in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (and Titus 1:5-9), which refers to the need for “bishops” (also called “elders” in Titus) to be “the husband of one wife.” However, one would have to prohibit single men and widowers too, for they are not “the husband of one wife” either.

Furthermore, gender neutrality is evident in 1 Timothy 3:1. It reads, “This is a true saying, If a man (Gk. tis – anyone) desire the office of a bishop, he (not in Gk.) desireth a good work.” The translation of “man” is not incorrect if understood in the way it is used in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

In describing the requirements for elders (and deacons), Paul focuses on the typical candidate of his time, a spiritually sound and experienced married man with children. “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim. 3:2-4). Though he does not mention single men, widowers, childless married men, or women, he is in no way excluding them.

Paul returns to gender neutrality in 1 Timothy 3:5.  “For if a man (Gk. tis –anyone) know not how to rule his (not in Gk.) own house, how shall he (not in Gk.) take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5).

Such an interpretation is in keeping with our redemption. In Christ, we are restored to the equality seen at creation (Gen. 1:28) because the curse, “he shall rule over thee,” that came at the Fall (Gen. 3:16) is ended at the cross. For, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28).

Even if Paul had males in mind for elders when writing to Timothy, we need to keep in mind that he was not writing a manual, but a letter for an occasion. Paul was likely being descriptive of elders and deacons as males, for this was where the church was generally at socially, but this was not necessarily prescriptive for the entire church age. For Paul also wrote concerning slaves and slave owners, and yet we do not take what he wrote as an endorsement of slavery.

I don't have the time to fully express my continued dismay at your strange interpretations and insertion of your own ideology to fit your viewpoints here. I will say, however, that we've come to expect this kind of thing from some who don't go by the strct, conservative viewpoint of Scripture. I will return to it within the next few weeks as I have several other things that require my attention at this time. I hope some of the pastors here will speak up and clarify the BAPTIST position on these things, and I don't mean the viewpoints of Rick Warren.

[Jim_Alaska]

7 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I also choose Scripture above all else. My "opinions" are interpretations that are consistent with the text and historial occasion of 1 Timothy, which are essential for the context. There is also plenty of biblical evidence in Acts that shows a fervancy for the religion of Artemis in Ephesus. This was the context in which the gospel went to this city and that Timothy found himself.

More importantly, my interpretations are congruent with the other Scriptures I gave that speak of the redemption found in Christ. 

As requested, here's proof that "he shall rule over thee" ended at the cross:

Creation shows God's original intention for the man and woman. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen. 1:27-28). Before the Fall they were co-rulers.

After the Fall, God changed things, saying to the woman, "he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3:16). Like thorns on roses, and pain in childbirth, "he shall rule over thee" became the fallen inclination of men toward women.

However, now, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3:13). Consequently, the equality that was lost has been restored for those in Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).

Spiritually, those who are born again are made completely new. At Christ's return, we'll experience the full redemption purchased on our behalf at the cross, seeing fully and taking on physical immorality. Until then, we are instructed to be "transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom. 12:2).

Christian men should renew their thinking and act according to the redemption of men and women to being co-heirs once again.

The restoration to male and female equality through Christ is implied when Paul says "that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:16-17).

1 Peter 3:7 says, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Christ is able to restore this behavior to men so that they can begin to consistently treat women with the equailty that existed before the Fall.

The gender neutrality of 1 Timothy 3:1 and 5 is found in the Greek term tis., which is translated as "man," but has the meaning "anyone."

I asked for Scripture, only Scripture. minus your interpretations. I am fully capable of reading any Scripture you provide without your spin on them.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

8 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I asked for Scripture, only Scripture. minus your interpretations. I am fully capable of reading any Scripture you provide without your spin on them.

Scripture requires interpretation. And, difficult passages require all the more attention.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

There is a lot to consider in these verses, let alone their context to the epistle or the entire word of God. And, I guarantee you that most people will come up with different interpretations of what Paul is saying. For example, why did Paul switch to using the singular "woman" from "women," and "the man" from "men"? After all, he had been addressing plural "men" and "women" in the prior verses. "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1 Tim. 2:8-10).

Note, the word translated as "woman" (gynē) is also used for "wife." Is he only talking about "a woman" in a married relationship to "the man" (andros), a term also used for "husband"?

What does "all" mean in, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"?

Does "be in silence" mean "a woman" cannot speak at all?

Why does Paul say, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? Though she was the one "deceived," they were both in "the transgression."

What does he mean by, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"?

---

There are many passages that require more effort in interpreting. For example:

"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Rom. 12:20).

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24).

---

The Indian Creek Baptist Church Blog has a helpful guide for interpreting Scripture. See Bible Study Basics: Tools. I think the author's concern is worth noting.

• One troubling point of view that I’ve often heard from well-meaning church members is that a serious student of God’s Word does not need interpretive help. “I don’t read anything except for the Bible” and “I have the Holy Spirit, so I don’t need to read anyone else’s thoughts on Scripture” are two sentiments I have heard in recent weeks. This view is risky. While it presumes to place a high view on the Spirit’s ability to illuminate the meaning of the text, I would argue it does the opposite. It places a supreme value on your own subjective ability to perceive the Spirit’s illumination and rightly interpret the text. (Andrew White, 2021)

P.S. I am not suggesting the author came to the same view as me and other egalitarians.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Clarified: Is he only talking about "a woman" in a married relationship to "the man" (andros), a term also used for "husband"? Added: P.S. I am not suggesting the author came to the same view as me and other egalitarians.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

13 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

I don't have the time to fully express my continued dismay at your strange interpretations and insertion of your own ideology to fit your viewpoints here. I will say, however, that we've come to expect this kind of thing from some who don't go by the strct, conservative viewpoint of Scripture. I will return to it within the next few weeks as I have several other things that require my attention at this time. I hope some of the pastors here will speak up and clarify the BAPTIST position on these things, and I don't mean the viewpoints of Rick Warren.

According to Warren, “This is not a battle between liberals and conservatives. All the liberals left a long time ago." He says, "I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I do not believe in the inerrancy of your interpretation, nor of mine for that matter. . . . A conservative Baptist believes in the inerrancy of Scripture; a fundamentalist Baptist believes in inerrancy of their interpretation. That’s a big difference” (taken from the Baptist News Global article, Scripture changed his mind on women in ministry, Rick Warren tells Russell Moore).

P.S. Warren explains his use of the term "fundamentalist" as follows:

• Even though the so-called “liberals” left the SBC more than two decades ago, “this is the same old battle that’s been going on for a hundred years in the SBC between conservative Baptists and fundamental Baptist,” Warren declared. “Now, ‘fundamentalism’ is a word that has changed. A hundred years ago, I would’ve called myself a fundamentalist, because in the 1920s, it meant you hold the historic doctrines of the church, the blood atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, all the basic cardinal doctrines of evangelical Protestantism.
• “But that word has changed because now we have fundamental Muslims, fundamental Buddhists. We have fundamental atheists, we have fundamental communists, we have fundamentalists who are secularists. Today, a fundamentalist means you’ve stopped listening. It means you’ve stopped listening.”

[SureWord]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:23 AM, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Yes, and they were all Jews too.

The fact that Jesus never chose a female apostle cannot be used as a conclusive guide for only selecting male church elders, for He also never chose a gentile to be among the twelve, and yet we have gentile elders.

Women were uneducated in Jesus' day, with less training than even the fishermen Jesus chose. Males were trained in the Scriptures during childhood far more than females. Women were socially restricted in ways that would take generations to change (not too unlike Afghanistan). Also, culturally, men were listened to more than women were.

Having gentiles or women as the main apostolic witnesses to all He said and did would have been untimely and would have frustrated more than helped the cause. In short, He chose Jewish men simply because they had the cultural access needed to speak in the Temple and synagogues that neither women nor Gentiles had.

Jesus’ approach toward women was very radical and would help pave the way for their eventual full emancipation and participation. He began ringing changes by teaching women both publicly and privately and commissioning them with messages to share with men and women, none more profound than the announcement of the resurrection which He gave to Mary Magdalene to share with the apostles.

The full outworking of God’s principles toward women has its foundation in Christ. Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Your reasoning is illogical. 

Jesus didn't choose Gentile apostles therefore women are OK to be pastors, etc. Strange conclusion.

Jesus wasn't so radical as to ordain women for the ministry.  Neither was Paul or the other apostles.

Having an education was irrelevant. Many called haven't had any education. 

Your interpretation of Galatians 3:28 makes it OK for men and women to use to same bathrooms, women to be the husband, etc. maybe even be transgender since, hey, we are all the same in Christ.

 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, SureWord said:

Your reasoning is illogical. 

Jesus didn't choose Gentile apostles therefore women are OK to be pastors, etc. Strange conclusion.

Jesus wasn't so radical as to ordain women for the ministry.  Neither was Paul or the other apostles.

Having an education was irrelevant. Many called haven't had any education. 

Your interpretation of Galatians 3:28 makes it OK for men and women to use to same bathrooms, women to be the husband, etc. maybe even be transgender since, hey, we are all the same in Christ.

I pointed out that gentiles were not chosen among the twelve and yet we allow them to be elders, to refute the idea that women cannot be elders on the basis that Jesus only chose males. We shouldn't use Jesus’ choice of only males as a guide for eldership any more than He only chose Jews. 

I specified the level of education. To be a witness doesn't require much education. To be a teacher, which elders are, requires education. At the time, males had a huge head start over females. A basic foundation in the Law was helpful to build upon.

"Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables" (Acts 6:2).

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

"apt to teach" (2 Tim. 2 :24).

"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old" (Matt. 13:52).

My interpretation of Galatians 3:28 recognizes the equality of all people in Christ with regard to their saved status, the priesthood of all believers, and the roles they may be called to in the body of Christ. It does not deny the existence of people groups, statuses, or the two genders. Nor does it condone immorality any more than salvation by grace means that we can sin. God forbid!

Edited June 2, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Added: the priesthood of all believers

[BrotherTony]

6 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

According to Warren, “This is not a battle between liberals and conservatives. All the liberals left a long time ago." He says, "I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I do not believe in the inerrancy of your interpretation, nor of mine for that matter. . . . A conservative Baptist believes in the inerrancy of Scripture; a fundamentalist Baptist believes in inerrancy of their interpretation. That’s a big difference” (taken from the Baptist News Global article, Scripture changed his mind on women in ministry, Rick Warren tells Russell Moore).

P.S. Warren explains his use of the term "fundamentalist" as follows:

• Even though the so-called “liberals” left the SBC more than two decades ago, “this is the same old battle that’s been going on for a hundred years in the SBC between conservative Baptists and fundamental Baptist,” Warren declared. “Now, ‘fundamentalism’ is a word that has changed. A hundred years ago, I would’ve called myself a fundamentalist, because in the 1920s, it meant you hold the historic doctrines of the church, the blood atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, all the basic cardinal doctrines of evangelical Protestantism.
• “But that word has changed because now we have fundamental Muslims, fundamental Buddhists. We have fundamental atheists, we have fundamental communists, we have fundamentalists who are secularists. Today, a fundamentalist means you’ve stopped listening. It means you’ve stopped listening.”

As I said before, Mr. Warren speaks for himself and a faction within the Baptist circles who would like to put forth their liberal ideology and leave the "ancient landmarks" that our forefathers held. You can continue to promote his ideology and your own if you will, but you will make no headway here. I tell you once again, we don't buy it. Mr. Warren has proven time and again that the inerrancy of scripture is the furthest thing from his heart and mind.

Edited June 2, 2023 by BrotherTony

[Jim_Alaska]

15 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Scripture requires interpretation. And, difficult passages require all the more attention.

I ask for Scripture and only Scripture and the above is what you give me.

So, according to YOU, God sent me a love letter (Scripture), but it is not possible for me to understand it without you interpreting it for me.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

15 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I ask for Scripture and only Scripture and the above is what you give me.

So, according to YOU, God sent me a love letter (Scripture), but it is not possible for me to understand it without you interpreting it for me.

That's clearly not what I said. 

[Pastor Matt]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

That's clearly not what I said. 

TBH, I came to the same conclusion after reading your post(s).  Seem to answer a question that wasn't the question. Logically speaking, answering the way you did implicates what Jim said.

 As the author of this thread, I'm closing this topic before it get's like others.