New Testament Church Proliferation Digest

Spreading the Gospel via House Churches

NT Church Proliferation Digest Saturday, August 31 2002 Volume 02 : Number 155
Re: [NTCP] Concerning Women Elders/Apostles/and associated roles
Re: [NTCP] Changing the topic
Re: [NTCP] Women
Re: [NTCP] sin or no sin
RE: [NTCP] sin or no sin

Date: 30 Aug 2002 08:14:52 -0400
From: Mike Sangrey <msangrey * BlueFeltHat>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Concerning Women Elders/Apostles/and associated roles

I'll keep this fairly short.

On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 03:41, Deborah wrote:
> Mike S. wrote:
> > Having said that, I take the 1 Tim. 2
> > passage as referring to husbands and
> > wives .... The words (ANER and GUNH)
> > can be translated either as man and
> > woman OR husband and wife. How do
> > we know [which]? .... If I use the word in its
> > more natural/normal sense, I do not
> > need as much context. One sense is
> > more common and therefore more easily
> > accessible by the mind. <snip>
> I test drove your thesis; this is what I found. Tell me what you
> think, please. Watch what I bracket:
> 1 Timothy 2:1 "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers,
> petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men [husbands],

The word translated `man' and `men' in vs 1-7 is ANQRWPOS which
essentially means `person' or `people', not `husband'. Paul goes from
the general of `person' to the specific of `husband' in vs 8 as he
focuses on the family unit as the basic unit of society.

I *think* I know where you're at. I use to be there, too. And I DON'T
say that to sound in any way condescending. Not at all. I really
appreciate your emphasis on "stick'n close to the text." It was that
very thing which brought me to the place I am today in my understanding
of this text. There are various ways of interpreting it and as I tried
them, various things stuck out like sore thumbs and I had to explain
them. It wasn't until I arrived at where I'm at now that the text hangs
together. There are still things that have to be explained. But it
appears to me they have to be explained because of certain preconceived
theological assumptions we bring to the text.

For example, if I may, you say, "I'm pretty sure that the issue is more
pastoral/teaching; not applied to, say, English class." OK, but why do
you say that? In other words, what in the text triggers THAT way of
looking at it? Or is there some assumption you bring to the text which
you think needs to apply? And if it is pastoral, then does it express a
pastoral concern for just the church or is it a pastoral concern for
everyone? Those are difficult questions to answer--for anyone. It's
like sorting out one's motivations as in the times I ask myself, "Why am
I REALLY dong such-n-such?" It's difficult to let the text speak.

Consider that the main topic of this whole section has to do with hUPER
PANTWN ANQRWPWN ("on behalf of everyone") vs 2:1. And also that the
supporting reason has to do with the incarnation (vs 5) Note the GAR (a
word which marks a supporting statement). Paul uses this same type of
argument elsewhere (that is, that the incarnation is fundamental to how
one lives and influences this pagan world--cf 1 Cor. 8:6ff[1]) and John
uses it, too (cf John 1, especially 1:1-18 and 51--interesting, isn't
it, that the introduction to the 7 miracles of John (cf 20:30) is an
emphasis on the incarnation and the people who witnessed it.)

BTW, I haven't related anything about the 1 Cor. 14 passage. As I
understand that passage it is not only self-consistent but is quite
consistent with how I understand 1 Tim 2. Letting the text tell me what
to believe is VERY important to me, as it is you, too.

God's best to you and the people you serve.

- ---
[1] One really needs to read 1 Cor. 8:1-11:1 as a single unit since (in
my view, anyway) Paul builds his whole argument of how to live in a
pagan society on the foundation of an incarnated God, namely the Messiah
Jesus. I think Paul is doing a similar thing here in 1 Tim. with an
emphasis on prayer being vital for its success.
Mike Sangrey
msangrey * BlueFeltHat
Landisburg, Pa.
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."

------- <><><> -------

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:20:47 +0200
From: "Deborah" <deborah.millier * juccampus>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Changing the topic

Hey gang,
Have you ever been with a large group of people just chatting away ...
and *really* enjoying yourself? Then all of a sudden someone in the group
who couldn't see the value of the discussion, or who maybe saw things a
little different than you, just up and said, "I'm bored. I wanna do sumpin
else". Those of you "in the flow," relishing the give and take of debate,
the exchange of useful information, maybe sort of bristled at what you
considered the selfishness ... and perhaps someone brave enough to voice
what a chunk of you were thinking said (against convention, I know), "Well,
why don't *you* go do something different".

That's how I'm feeling right now. Some of us -- more than a few--
might still want to talk about the topic of apostles/women in ministry. And
why shouldn't we? ... without the inconvenience of having to regroup and
reorganize a multi-person discussion off-list. There is room for more than
one thread on-list. Why can't we stay? What we have been exploring
together is appropos to the goals of this list: NT church polity. The
moderator hasn't called us down; why should anyone else? There is still
more to explore on the topic(s) and we find it interesting. And edifying.
I was waiting for replies to some of my posts. Now I'm afraid those
interested to continue would be loath to send responses for fear they would
offend someone. They have tenderer hearts than mine. I will speak my mind
here even if our current chat loses momentum due to my fellow discussers'
(who found value in the thread) social sensibilities. It might help in the

The "I'm bored, I wanna do sumpin else" remarks have offended *me*.
In the past. And now. They are a splash of cold water on a fiery fun time.
If *you* do not want to read the discussion people are having, why not
simply note the thread header, and if it pops up "Apostles ...," "Women
...," or whatever, just hit the delete button? Easy as that. That way you
can go on to what you find more interesting, and the rest of us engaged in
what we consider to be a profitable discussion can do the same. A win/win
situation. Okay?

Something to think about,


------- <><><> -------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vanessa DiDomenico <van3hijos * yahoo>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Women

- --- JoelBRJr * aol wrote:

> Would the Same God that has said that in the last days His Spirit will
> be
> poured out on all - Women as well as Men (Joel 2:28-29, Acts 2:17-18),
> deny
> leadership positions to half of His creation after having gifted some
> for
> those positions?

WHo says we need 'leadership possitions' to do more than the leaders?
leaders do the LEAST amount of work always. It's the others who do most.
So I don't see where the leadership position is necessary. Besides, when
you are in a REAL leadership possition, you will probably not even notice
unless it is formal, in which case it probably comes from men, not from


------- <><><> -------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vanessa DiDomenico <van3hijos * yahoo>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] sin or no sin

Paul crearly says that it is the sin in him that does the bad things, not
himself. because sin lives in flesh, even when I want to not sin, my flesh
will sin, but that is not me anymore, but the sin that is in my flesh.


------- <><><> -------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:01:38 +0200
From: "Keith Smith" <castillofuerte * airtel>
Subject: RE: [NTCP] sin or no sin

Are you really saying that you are not responsable for the sin that your
flesh commits? When did you and your flesh get divorced?


End of New Testament Church Planting Digest V2 #155< Previous Digest Next Digest >

house church eldership servanthood lord's day lord's supper world missions