> General Discussions
Ray's Teachings - Women in the Church?
athisfeet:
Hello Kat:
I am not saying that the natural is the spiritual. That was my whole point. That we must look at these things SPIRITUALLY. We can be "in the flesh (naturally) and yet "not in the flesh" (spiritually).
We do not have to "take off" the flesh to "put on" the spirit do we? Isn't that the point that Paul was making when he said that we do NOT desire to be UNCLOTHED, but to be CLOTHED UPON?
Only Christ is IMMORTAL and INCORRUPTIBLE, so when we are clothed (by/with Christ) doesn't this mortal "put on" immortality and this corruption "put on" incorruption? Isn't that how we are "raised" to LIFE? Baptized into Christ's DEATH and resurrected into his LIFE? Maybe I am looking at those verses differntly from you (and Ray)? But I try to look at ALL of the scriptures spiritually and not naturally. Isn't that what we are supposed to do? I thought that was what Ray taught, that the scriptures are to be spiritually discerned?
For example, Christ defined the “dead” as those who “have no life in them” (those not partaking of HIS flesh and HIS blood), right? So now when I read the scriptures that talk about the “dead”, I try to keep that in mind and apply those verses spiritually, rather than naturally, to see what I can garner from a spiritual perspective.
Isn’t it that we understand the things that are not seen (spiritual) by looking at the things that are seen (natural)?
So in the OT when it says "the dead know not anything", we can look at that after the flesh (which is the only way that some will ever look at it) and say that those who are physically dead and buried in a physical grave of dirt "know not anything". But isn't there a spiritual application that is much more important and much more relevant (spiritually)? Isn't it true that "the (spiritually) dead know not anything"? See what I mean?
This "body" (which Paul called a body of death) is likened to a "grave"; the Pharisees were "full of dead men's bones", the throat is an “open sepulcher”….etc, etc. That is what I mean by “rightly dividing” the word (and I thought that was what Ray meant as well… looking at the word of God spiritually and not naturally (“after the flesh”). Maybe I am wrong and I am going about this the wrong way, but it sure has opened up a lot of things to me spiritually that I never could see or understand before.
But this is getting off topic as the thread was really about women teaching, though I think this is related to the topic of men and women (or husbands and wives) as I think that maybe that relationship and what Paul was speaking about is being misunderstood because we are not rightly dividing the word and applying it spiritually (to Christ and the church, as Paul said)… but I guess it really doesn’t matter if Ray teaches that we are “still in the flesh” when it comes to the topic of husbands and wives and "male and female" and that is how everyone else here sees it as well.
I shouldn't have even said anything. I was just caught off-guard at the thought that we are not "born again" until after we physically die. As I said that was NEW to me, as I did not (before) understand that to be Ray's position. I still believe that is wrong (based on the undersatnding that has been given to me), but I'll just go back to keeping my mouth shut now before I get myself in trouble here or I am accused of trying to cause division. That was not my intention.
Thanks,
athisfeet :-X
Layla:
Hi Arcturus
I will respond to this post of yours, but after that you may have the last word because what I see here is troubling to me. You say you do not wish to debate, but the fact is this response of yours as was the other speaks the exact opposite. You have not stated, so I can only assume, that you are of the belief that woman should not teach in church. May I ask you what your belief of church is? Is it not the gathering of the saints? Then I must ask you, being a woman, how do you view your over 200 posts made here? Is it that you prefer to believe that in your posts you are not teaching or is it that you prefer to believe that the gathering of the saints here is not "church" or do you just belief the law but disregard it?
--- Quote ---The problem of whether a woman should or should not teach or hold a position that reflects anything other than being a silent submissive member is looked upon differently amongst the many different denominations.
Irrelevant. This opening comment camouflages the content of the following teaching by obscuring the fact that the scripture does not lie. Gods word is not made less or more true based on or subject to popularity vote or different interpretations or the many different denominations.
--- End quote ---
On what basis do you see his comments camouflaging the content by obscuring the fact that scripture does not lie? His comments are based upon the very fact that the scriptures are truth and that the scriptures (by law) provide for two or three witnesses. You are setting up a straw man (for what purpose I do not know) by suggesting that his comments declare that God's word is made true subject to a popularity vote, because he has not suggested such a thing, but rather is stating a fact that should be acknowledged so that all of what man says is disregarded in favor of the scriptures.
--- Quote ---(Like wearing a hat) Within the scriptures we have several women used of God to further His Will on earth.
Incorrect. Here the author mixes up the WILL of God with the PLAN of God.Case in point : Esther. God did not have to use Esther, or the burning bush or a talking donkey to further His WILL on earth. Esther, the burning bush and the donkey were all part of Gods PLAN. God doesn’t use humans, bushes or donkeys to get to His Will. He causes circumstances, He authors circumstances to create His Plan and then humans bushes and donkeys live out that plan. In a e-mail response by Ray FREE WILL he responds, quote “ distinguish between God’s “will”….and God’s “plan” to achieve His “Will”. God’s Will…live righteously….His plan….first live Unrighteously….to be humbled in our utter inability to do God’s perfect will…..repent of our wickedness. Understand….we sin from our hearts, so it is only right and good that we should be punished….. and…. converted into the Image of God’s Son.”
--- End quote ---
This sounds like nitpicking to me....hence my observation that you are looking to debate. While I have read Ray's work and I agree with what Ray states, the fact is that God's Plan is not outside of His Will.
--- Quote ---In the OT had Queen Esther not pleaded with the King to reverse his decision
NO….no….no….had Queen Esther not been CAUSED BY GOD to plead with the King….and thereafter had God not CAUSED the King to reverse his decision….is more like it. That the plan of God was written for a woman is secondary to the fact that God wrote and caused His Plan to include both men and women that God wrote from start to finish.
based on the testimony of an evil man, the entire Jewish nation under his command would have put to death. Here Doug puts Queen Esther on the pedestal and not God….because the difference between Gods will and Gods plan is not discerned. This error is what happens when man tries to idolise men or women above God. This error happens when human understanding over looks Gods Sovereignty. This error manifests when human heroes and heroines are given supremacy above Gods Sovereign place
Again you are setting up a straw man by suggesting that his comments are stating that "human heroes and heroines are given supremacy above Gods Sovereign place." Esther was being divinely guided that is "understood".
--- End quote ---
This writing was given at a board where there are no babes drinking milk Arturus and thus simple statements like the above are not going to be trampled and twisted upon like you have done, whether you are aware of it or not. I have learned something though, that it is best to leave the more learned comments I am given with the more learned and not share them with those who would wrestle and twist them to their own demise.
--- Quote ---Obviously in this instance the voice of a woman was far better than the words of a man…
.....Since when is the voice of a woman far better than the words of a man?….Is it..…since the man did not represent God’s Will for His chosen people. Where? Where does scripture say this? Show me one place! Give me the second witness to this man made heresy.
--- End quote ---
Again, another twist and another straw man. The comment does not say that the voice of a woman is far better than the words of man. What is stated is "in this instance."
--- Quote ---who did not represent God’s Will for His chosen people. Who is to say that a woman today should not speak for the Will of God
what heresy is this? Which woman can speak for the Will of God? Oh yes, I know. Jezebel and the Harlot, Mystery Babylon!…when a man speaks and teaches against God’s Will? When a man speaks and teaches against God’s Will then he is still in God’s plan. Pharaoh resisted God’s will. That was God’s plan.
--- End quote ---
You have split this sentence into half and then proceeded to trample it. I have to tell you that I know that I have offered something worthwhile and hopefully some here have taken the time to "chew the cud" as opposed to receiving it as would swine who trample their food prior to eating it. Frankly, I think I've had enough of reading your response. I don't know if you know how offensive your response to me is. I have prayed and it is only by the grace of God that you have not caused me to sin. I think you ought to consider your words more carefully when responding to someone Arturus.
Peace,
Layla
Layla:
Hi athisfeet - I do not think you are trying to cause division. I understand it as you do, but I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that we have or anyone has yet come into the fullness of Christ (joint heirs) and this is what I believe Joe was referring to.
Peace,
Layla
Kat:
Hi athisfeet,
I wanted to answer you because I feel that we can come to agreement on this.
I will give the scripture that shown me what I have come to believe.
--- Quote ---Only Christ is IMMORTAL and INCORRUPTIBLE, so when we are clothed (by/with Christ) doesn't this mortal "put on" immortality and this corruption "put on" incorruption? Isn't that how we are "raised" to LIFE? Baptized into Christ's DEATH and resurrected into his LIFE?
--- End quote ---
1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
This scripture is about Christ's return, we become imperishable and immortal when we are changed and are raised up from sleep. I believe this sleep is referring to death as Jesus referred to about Lazarus.
Joh 11:11 He said these things; and after that He said to them, Our friend Lazarus sleeps. But I go so that I may awaken him out of sleep.
Joh 11:12 Then His disciples said, Lord, if he sleeps, he will get well.
Joh 11:13 But Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He had spoken of taking rest in sleep.
I hope you can understand why I believe this now.
If you would like to discuss other points, that would be good,
but only if you so desire.
mercy, peace, and love
Kat
hillsbororiver:
Hello Layla,
What you said is true.
Hello Kat,
Very good post, I don't need to add a thing.
His Peace and Wisdom to you,
Joe
PS For clarification the quote I was referring to in regard to Layla is in bold below;
I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that we have or anyone has yet come into the fullness of Christ (joint heirs) and this is what I believe Joe was referring to.
Peace,
Layla
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version