tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343277549128598933.post2148185465618389595..comments2023-08-10T09:38:07.159+01:00Comments on Revising Reform: Slippery slopes and political hillsRev R Marszalekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01831340057673771787noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343277549128598933.post-41651899379693225182014-12-27T21:59:36.222+00:002014-12-27T21:59:36.222+00:00The case for my conviction that the ordination of ...The case for my conviction that the ordination of women is contrary to the revealed will of God is set out in a post (August 28 2014 at 3.42 pm) to the Fulcrum thread ‘Paul’s concern for the women in Timothy’s churches: Notes on 1 Tim 2:8-15’. After the introduction my argument begins, <br />“‘But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything’ (Ephesians 5:24 in the context of Ephesians 5:18-33).<br />The heart of the disagreement about the ordination of women is the disagreement over what it means in the above passage for the church to be subject to Christ and what this should mean in the above passage for the husband-wife relationship in marriage and, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Timothy 3, for the man-woman relationship in the church.”<br />As I go on to argue, the key flaw in your case is that, contra Bilezikian, Padgett and others, Christ does not submit to the church.<br />Phil Almond<br />Phil Almondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343277549128598933.post-86287695162439617602014-12-01T22:37:37.810+00:002014-12-01T22:37:37.810+00:00Not as opposed to your thoughts as you might imagi...Not as opposed to your thoughts as you might imagine - was discussing today with a colleague the post-modern context - reader response theory and the plasticity of definitions - I understand too, of course, the nature of the language of the academy and its limitations - it has to impact the public square, hence the grounding of it all in coal-face public ministries - my only ivory tower is this one... thanks Adrian. Revisingreformhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16284709774950023154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343277549128598933.post-81614678424339302412014-11-19T03:52:28.900+00:002014-11-19T03:52:28.900+00:00This part sticks out like a sore thumb: "wher...This part sticks out like a sore thumb: "where he described how all the things that man-kind has ever expressed to know, have their origin in the Wisdom that is Logos: the pre-existent Christ, it's just that humanity has not for most of time and history been able to understand from where their knowledge has its origins."<br /><br />Do you, a twenty-first century person, with all that we have developed in subject areas, really believe this - a nonsensical view (now) of a premodern thinker, who rather assumed his sacred canopy. Far from this being so, knowledge has completely circumvented a Christian origin of itself. And so when you say: " he, of all people, knows to caution against false teaching. Capitulating to heterodoxy brings death." I shall just say, heterodoxy is the 'other' in the mind of the self-acclaimed orthodox, and as someone who succumbed to heterodoxy I'll instead quote some economics by Keynes - that, in the long run, we are all dead.<br /><br />As for your main argument, all it proves is the plasticity and inauthentic nature of so much theology. You can make it say what you want it to say.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.com