PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Role of Women in Ministry



poochie
Aug 19th 2008, 10:25 PM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14 Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

Sold Out
Aug 19th 2008, 10:42 PM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..


I agree with you. Paul commended Timothy's mother and grandmother for his spiritual training:

"when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also." II Tim 1:5

vinsight4u8
Aug 19th 2008, 10:44 PM
So I guess that means you don't want to learn the things that God wants me to show people in the scriptures?

such as the proper flow to Revelation?

amazzin
Aug 19th 2008, 10:46 PM
Your mind is made up, what's there to say except you are mislead

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 01:05 AM
If you are preaching then it is not Biblical for you to do so for you must be silent.

Read 1 Tim 3 and then ask yourself why you are serving in a leadership position over men.


So I guess that means you don't want to learn the things that God wants me to show people in the scriptures?

such as the proper flow to Revelation?

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 01:07 AM
Yeah but Fundamentalists may argue that this training was not in the FORMAL church.


I agree with you. Paul commended Timothy's mother and grandmother for his spiritual training:

"when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also." II Tim 1:5

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 01:11 AM
If you are preaching then it is not Biblical for you to do so for you must be silent.

Read 1 Tim 3 and then ask yourself why you are serving in a leadership position over men.

God called me when I was fifteen for the job I do today.

He called me to intensely learn scripture as one day I would teach it.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 01:18 AM
Your mind is made up, what's there to say except you are mislead


Why am I misled? Can you show me chapter and verse that say women can be pastors and have spiritual authority over a man? Please show me where it is so I can improve.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 01:22 AM
But the Bible is quite clear about this and this is that a Woman shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man, for you must be silent (1 Tim).

Show me chapter and verse that says you can be a pastor or have a leadership position over a man (outside of children and womens ministries).

My argument is against the Fundamentalists who take it so far. Read my article.

Reason #8- Jesus liberated Women


Luke 8:1-3
After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him,and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.



In Jesus' day, women were not looked at with great favor. Women had little if any rights and often were looked at with degradation and as servants. In Jewish culture women were not supposed to learn from rabbis (LAB). But Jesus went right up against the culture and allowed these women to travel with him, once again breaking a culture norm. These women not only traveled with Jesus but they supported him and his ministry out of their own finances. I have met some Fundamentalists who look at women as servants. Once when I was doing street evangelism I asked a woman to pray for the group, but a certain man butted into my request and said that women cant pray out loud. I challenged him, but he never gave me scripture support, so I let him pray for the group. But its abuse of women like this that makes me angry. Also, at another well-known church in the area do women wear head coverings. Women that do not wear head coverings at this church are few in number, and probably are looked at as bearing a bad testimony. The Bible says that a Woman shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man for she must be silent (1 Tim 2:12). This means that women cant be pastors over men, or hold spiritual authority over men. However this does not mean that women cant give their testimony's, cant lead children's ministries, cant lead women's ministries, cant pray out loud, cant lead worship, or even counsel men in some areas. I have personally learned allot from women. In my many years in Evangelicalism have I met many women who have taught me so much about social/people skills, mannerisms, and in other areas that Fundamentalists say that a woman cant teach a man. Of course, there are some areas that it would be wise for a woman not to counsel a man, but these are obvious.



Not all Fundamentalists degrade women to servants, but those that do really sicken me. Women in these kinds of churches have never experienced their freedom in Christ, because slavery and degradation is all they know. In my experience at a Fundamentalist university, I can sadly say that I have met few women who would agree with me here. The exception is a former evangelical/Pentecostal woman whom I met at a summer children's ministry. But she thinks the way she does, because God has opened her eyes to the truth and she did not grow up in a Fundamentalist background. I have met others at this university, but they are few in number. I am not arguing in favor of women pastors over men, I am arguing against abuse of women that some Fundamentalists dish out, and unfortunately women that have grown up with this abuse cant see beyond it. The Bible is clear in that a woman shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12). But besides these roles, women can lead worship, pray publicly, give their testimonies, counsel men and use their gifts to the full in the body of Christ. Praise the Lord for women that are used by the Holy Spirit.



God called me when I was fifteen for the job I do today.

He called me to intensely learn scripture as one day I would teach it.

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 01:24 AM
So you're saying that I shouldn't use my gift of understanding prophecy - except to show it to women?

Merton
Aug 20th 2008, 01:26 AM
God called me when I was fifteen for the job I do today.

He called me to intensely learn scripture as one day I would teach it.




So that is who you is.;)


Merton.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 01:28 AM
So you're saying that I shouldn't use my gift of understanding prophecy - except to show it to women?

Glad Target and the rest of the stores that I have been to didn't agree with you.


Prophecy was a sign gift and is no longer valid in the church.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/sign_gifts.htm

What you can do is this.

Pray and teach other women. You can also help and encourage men. But you cannot be a bible teacher over a man for any reason.

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 01:30 AM
So that is who you is.;)


Merton.


What do you mean by - that is "who I is"?

I'm a girl - a lady - and many men have told me that God would use me one day - I'm called, chosen to serve God

women too have told me so

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 01:33 AM
Prophecy was a sign gift and is no longer valid in the church.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/sign_gifts.htm

What you can do is this.

Pray and teach other women. You can also help and encourage men. But you cannot be a bible teacher over a man for any reason.

I can't name a man at the moment that knows the bible better than I do. I don't need taught, for I have done the study part mostly already.

The job now - is to go forth and warn the church Jesus will come during the 7th trumpet. I hope to meet up with some others someday that have the depth of knowledge like I do.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 01:33 AM
I believe you have been called and I praise the Lord for this. But you have not been called to be a pastor. The Bible is clear about this.

As yourself this question.

Whats your authority? Experience? or Bible?


What do you mean by - that is "who I is"?

I'm a girl - a lady - and many men have told me that God would use me one day - I'm called, chosen to serve God

women too have told me so

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 01:35 AM
[quote=vinsight4u8;1756083]I can't name a man at the moment that knows the bible better than I do. I don't need taught, for I have done the study part mostly already.

Pride will tear you down fast woman. You must be humble and ready to fulfill your main duties. You must take care of children and teach other women. This is your main duty.

Merton
Aug 20th 2008, 01:42 AM
Hi,

Women are not forbidden to speak publically about the Bible, to teach it or most anything else.

In the the assemblies or in teaching men then that is the mans job, and mainly of the elders

Shepherds of the sheep are not women, but women do minister to children in their care.

Sunday school is ok but the main benefit is to children whose parent/ or parents are non-believers.

Believing households should teach their own children, and frankly they can get turned right off church by sitting them down listening to things they do not understand.

The presence of children in meetings can stiffle the conversation somewhat, and there were different kinds of meetings which Jesus held.

The modern church services can be contrary to the purposes of Christ so often.

Merton.

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 01:44 AM
[quote]

Pride will tear you down fast woman. You must be humble and ready to fulfill your main duties. You must take care of children and teach other women. This is your main duty.

It is not pride - for a prideful person I'm not - nor would God use me if I was.

Have you ever looked closely at Rev. 15:1?

for here is the very first time that John wrote about a particular group of angels

amazzin
Aug 20th 2008, 01:45 AM
Poochie

Stop being so dogmatic and so legalistic. If this is your opinion then good but do not put down our members who do not agree with you by telling them what they should be doing. Enough of this backwards teaching about women in the church

Merton
Aug 20th 2008, 01:46 AM
What do you mean by - that is "who I is"?





We go way back .

Merton.

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 01:51 AM
Hi,

Women are not forbidden to speak publically about the Bible, to teach it or most anything else.

In the the assemblies or in teaching men then that is the mans job, and mainly of the elders

Shepherds of the sheep are not women, but women do minister to children in their care.

Sunday school is ok but the main benefit is to children whose parent/ or parents are non-believers.

Believing households should teach their own children, and frankly they can get turned right off church by sitting them down listening to things they do not understand.

The presence of children in meetings can stiffle the conversation somewhat, and there were different kinds of meetings which Jesus held.

The modern church services can be contrary to the purposes of Christ so often.

Merton.

I'm not a pastor - but my calling is to teach - go forth and almost shout out, we need to give prophecy another look. It is time to understand what keys are there that can help us a bit more.

John wouldn't jot down seeing - the seven angels

till
he first - saw
seven angels

Merton
Aug 20th 2008, 01:52 AM
[quote]

Pride will tear you down fast woman. You must be humble and ready to fulfill your main duties. You must take care of children and teach other women. This is your main duty.


I could say a thing or two about myself without it being pride and Paul did say a lot about himself, but on public boards I would say very little about myself because it would be judged as being pride of the wrong kind.


I do not know that it is scripturally right for a man to judge another mans woman, or to teach them either.

Older women are to teach the younger women.



Merton.

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 02:01 AM
I told some- yes - some of them right at the start were men...none of then said go away - or we don't want to listen as I told them about Jesus and some of them wanted to know what I believed as to the timing of the rapture- so I showed them - the 7th trumpet and the 6th seal.

Merton
Aug 20th 2008, 02:03 AM
I'm not a pastor - but my calling is to teach - go forth and almost shout out, we need to give prophecy another look. It is time to understand what keys are there that can help us a bit more.

John wouldn't jot down seeing - the seven angels

till
he first - saw
seven angels


You have labored over that point without success because it means little to the order of the book, but I do agree that the seven angels of Rev.ch 8 have been mentioned before that time.

I use the blueprint layed down in descriptions of the past in the Bible rather than anything difficult and the book of Rev. is best understood by the background from where its statements come from.

Why does it concern you so much that others should see things as you do.?

Churches come before Trumpets. Christ returns at the 7th trumpet. Christs gathering of the elect mortals are during the vials and the wicked are destroyed in the 7th vial.

I do not know what could be so simple, but the waters are muddied by teachings of the ideas of men before people are taught by the Lord.

But yes, women often do have a chip on their shoulder, and men rejected by the mainstream churches do too, as with any weaker or minority group, but we get over it, don,t we.

Merton.

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 02:16 AM
You have labored over that point without success because it means little to the order of the book, but I do agree that the seven angels of Rev.ch 8 have been mentioned before that time.

I use the blueprint layed down in descriptions of the past in the Bible rather than anything difficult and the book of Rev. is best understood by the background from where its statements come from.

Why does it concern you so much that others should see things as you do.?

Churches come before Trumpets. Christ returns at the 7th trumpet. Christs gathering of the elect mortals are during the vials and the wicked are destroyed in the 7th vial.

I do not know what could be so simple, but the waters are muddied by teachings of the ideas of men before people are taught by the Lord.

But yes, women often do have a chip on their shoulder, and men rejected by the mainstream churches do too, as with any weaker or minority group, but we get over it, don,t we.

Merton.

so you agree that John was shown Rev. 15:1 before he wrote down Rev. 8:2?

If so, then think - just how did the angels get standing before God before the trumpets began?

Rev. 15:1
"And I saw.........seven angels..."
Rev. 8:2 "...I saw the seven angels..."
8:3 "...And another angel came..."

another angel came?
What?
John didn't say the seven angels came and stood before God.
John just wrote - them as already standing

But if we consider that he saw them first in 15:1 - they will be shown to leave heaven...
so somewhere in this chapter - they had to come back and then they stood before God.

Rev. 8:2 - speaks of those that stood
but we also know that they had to be the ones that came and then the other angel came with the incense
/the time that let John in ch 15 know men can't enter the temple in heaven till the plagues end

Rev. 15:8
smoke fills the temple
and here is the time of Rev. 4's four beasts resting not day and night holy phrase about Jesus

then in this time - returned the four angels - that came and stood - then the other angel came - time of incense and no man could enter the temple
till the seven plagues were fulfilled
(John saw and heard the trumpet time right here)

azheis
Aug 20th 2008, 02:23 AM
Just to clarify …I am not liberal nor am I liberal minded …..I have not changed the Word to fit the Left Coast theology. The Word is what it is, and says what it says. And despite what the outline states, culture does come into play for explanation purposes because the Bible is an Eastern Book ……… but the truth remains the same

We need to keep both Timothy and Corinthians within the context of which they were written.


I Timothy is a pastoral epistle written to the leadership in the church {note: when I use the word church I am speaking of the ekklesia “the called of God” “the body of Christ”, not a structure.} Therefore when reading this book we must keep in mind who it is addressing, and why. We cannot take a few verses out of their context and make them a general application to all women within the body of Christ; that is just poor workmanship of rightly dividing the Word.
We must also keep in mind cultural times. Here in Timothy, as well as I Corinthians 14:34 {dealing with the wives of the prophets} you have cultural standards that come into play.

Timothy is dealing with the leadership in the church, and specifically these verses in question are dealing with wives of the men of God in the leadership positions; responsible for teaching, and moving Gods word. We must read and understand these verses in that light, and not wretch them out of context to degrade women or put them in a false subservient light.
The whole context dictates that the men (husbands) were men of God with ministries as seen in 3:1 which is the more immediate context of these verses, and the remoter context of the book of Timothy


The following is a break-down of verses 9-15 I will post on I Corinthians separately
I Timothy 2:9-15
9: 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;

I Timothy 2:9 In like manner or “likewise”. You have to go back to verse 8 to find out what it’s referring to. Talking about husbands who were men of God praying everyplace “lifting up holy hands” which is a Figure of speech meaning “To have done all that can be done” speaking of the men of God praying in the previous verses. It now shifts to the women in doing all they can do.

The word also is not in any critical Greek text.

That women (Gr) gunę = wives – henceforth, the word woman is translated wives

adorn themselves (Gr) kosmeo it is the word transliterated over into our English as cosmos” It means orderly universe. To polish, or to beautifully cut out to carve in all perfection. Orderly like the stars that are set in their coarse, and like the paths of the seas, no collision. Its like all of God’s creation; that’s this word “adorn.”

{Other usages of kosmeo Luke 21:5, Titus 2:10, I Peter 3:3-5}

in modest apparel (Gr) kosmias the same root word as adorn.
Women are to adorn themselves adorningly {that’s probably not a real word} meaning well polished beautifully groomed, is the essence of what God is saying. It sets the woman with the man of God in all of its beauty and all of its greatness.

{I Timothy 3: 2 “of good behaviour” is the same word as kosmios}

With shamefacedness (Gr) aidôs = an inner grace. Manifesting the inner beauty of Christ in you, in your walk, your talk, and your manner of dress. One who recoils at anything unseemly, immoral or impure.

Sobriety ( Gr) sôphrosunę is self-restraint, habitual inner self-governing it’s the renewed mind dignified walk. Being an example in your walk because that man of God is your man, and you by your actions show the rest of the women in the household of God how they are to act or walk.

not – is conditional …….due to culture, the walk of a woman would vary.

broided hair (Gr) plegma hair-doo or gold, or pearls, or costly array
One example of this refers women who would have their hair put in the form of the temple, a horn or a tube that would go around the head made of gold studded with precious jewels. This would tie underneath the chin and over the top of the hair. At the back they would have braided cords of silk that would drop to the back of the knees, and at the bottom of those would be tassels of red silk, loaded with lead so the hair style would be tightened under the chin. ouch!


Verse 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.




But– Sets in contrast that which was preceding {broided hair, etc}

which becoumeth women – wives of the men of God

professing(Gr) epaggellomai To announce ones self

godliness = Wives showing themselves reverently godly, that is how you announce yourself. Wives are attractively dressed, sharp, cultured, but not to the end that your hot, or drawing attention to yourself through your costly array.

with good works – This Greek preposition indicates “with” as all the way through, not just the manner of dress, but the actions in your life. Doing what has just been stated, that’s “the good works.”

Verse 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.


Let the woman = wife of the man of God.

learn= to be informed, to understand to learn by study and observation.

in silence (Gr) hesuchia means – inner awareness, a quietness, tranquillity. It’s just the opposite of vociferous.
There is a time for a person to keep quiet and a time to speak. The context here is talking about “wives of the men of God”. With that inner awareness you will know when that time and palace is.

with all subjection = submission by loving obedience.
When the woman decided to marry the man she made a decision that the man would be the head of her, like God would be the head of the man. The wife has to become aware of the inner awareness of her man, just as the man is with God.


Verse 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.



but is the word “and”

i suffer(Gr) epitrepo means to direct, or instruct

not a woman = wives


to teach (Gr) didaske to debate. We get our word teacher from this Greek word. It’s used in the academic realm of a didactic coarse [a teaching coarse] But here is the beauty of this scripture. In our teaching methods there is no debate, but in the old Hebrew or the synagogue operation, anytime a teacher teaches, anybody who wants to get up and question him can do so. {God says - I instruct the wife not to debate in public with her man of God.} You can obviously see where this would belittle the man, showing great disrespect to the man of God, and the Word of God

nor= and not {emphatic}

to usurp authority over = to exercise power over, domineer.

the man = husband

but to be in silence – same word as in verse 11. “the inner awareness.”


Verse 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

For Adam was first formed then Eve – Adam was given authority and Eve was given to Adam as a companion. This doesn’t degrade the woman but rather just puts it in the order, which God formed, made, and created us.

Verse 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


And Adam was not deceived

But the woman {wife} being deceived = taken in, literally means baited by false statements which the adversary laid on her in Genesis. God’s just saying, look things haven’t changed, the adversary is still trying to pull the same stunts. That is why that word hesuchia {that inner awareness} is so vitally important in a woman’s walk, so that the woman is not trying to usurp authority over the man.


was in the

transgression– stepping aside from doing right. Even though Adam wasn’t deceived, it was because she was his companion, and when she was baited he went down to her level. This will generally always be true with a man.


Cont'd

azheis
Aug 20th 2008, 02:25 AM
Verse 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Notwithstanding = but

She shall be saved (Gr) sozo = made whole, made complete,

in = through

childbearing On the surface it looks like childbearing is a curse, but actually she {the wife} shall be made complete, whole, through childbearing.
{Guys will not understand that, but women will}

If they - The husband and wife.

Continue in (Gr) en - governs only the dative case and denotes being or remaining within, with the primary idea of rest and continuance.

Faith= (Gr) pistis - noun = the divinely implanted principle. It is one of the fruits of the spirit. This particular form is not the action of believing, but the firm persuasion or conviction of what we hear from God’s Word.

And charity = (Gr) agapę We all know this as being the love of God, but this love goes so much further than that which was known in the OT. It’s a spontaneous love irrespective of rights. It’s love in its fullest, conceivable form, and beyond.

And holiness - as becoming to the husband and wife as devoted to God.

with sobriety.( Gr) sôphrosunę is self-restraint, habitual inner self-governing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both the roll of the Man and the Woman should be kept in the perspective of the Word. {marriage relationship, and leadership relationship}
As for Women teaching in the Church, I find nothing in the Word that specifically disallows that; again, kept within the perspective and boundaries of written Word.

_________________________I Corinthians__________________________


I Corinthians 14: 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Again this is dealing with wives in the eastern culture, and the setting that took place. The setting is where men would sit on one side and women on the other of the room after the teaching. The men would discuss/debate what was taught. Remember that word didaske to debate
Interruptions were obviously taking place during that time from the wives, to necessitate God having this written {now remember this is not a large church structure; keep in mind the times. The churches were the group settings (i.e.) home fellowships as dictated in the book of Acts} All that God was saying was hold your opinion/discussion until you get home.
Also …the books of Corinthians is a correctional Epistle to show believers where they were off track, from not following the doctrine laid out in Romans, Ephesians, and Thessalonians.
Neither of these accounts In Timothy and Corinthians applies to all women, but as you can see it did apply to these specific settings and does apply to similar settings for obvious reasons.
Can woman teach the Word …absolutely! Can married woman teach the Word….. absolutely …within the confines of the written Word; which is “proper arrangement” between a husband and wife.

For example: {1st century home fellowship setting} the husband says. “hey babe ( they used that word a lot) you really seem to have a grasp on this holy spirit stuff , would you mind teaching tonight” and she replies: oh sure darling, oh love of my life, I am honored that you would ask; you truly are the head of the household, what a man, what a leader ….would you like a back rub tonight after I press and lay out your robe for tomorrow. ……………a little embellished ……….maybe

Lets take another example:{21st century:} A single woman is coordinating a home fellowship; she meets her knight in shining armor (that’s the whole armor of God) they decide to take the plunge, tie the knot, get hitched . The proper arrangement at that point would be that the man would become head of that home fellowship, assuming he was spiritually capable; they would become a team. {Personal note: if the guy is not spiritually capable, don’t expect to change him, or for him to change; in other words think twice before you get married}
In essence, the written Word does not squelch the ability for woman to preach or teach. I know, and have known some absolutely wonderful committed women of God with gift ministries. When these women were married, their priorities changed; which is biblically accurate. The word used in Ephesians is called submission, which is: loving obedience, by proper arrangement, and deliberate decision. This simply means when the woman decides by her free will to marry, the proper arrangement is that the husband becomes head of the household; {not a dictator} it means he lovingly guides and directs.

The only time usurping authority comes into play is when the Word deals with wives of the men of God in specific situations.
Should a woman elect not to get married, there is no restrictions on her priorities for serving the Lord, teaching and preaching Word. The only restrictions that exist would be in the mind of those who disagree with the written Word; the ones who think women should not preach……But who really looses in that case…… are those who will not accept the truth. I think it is abundantly clear when we look at scripture that God has no problem with women preaching/teaching the Word.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God bless
azheis

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 02:26 AM
You have labored over that point without success because it means little to the order of the book, but I do agree that the seven angels of Rev.ch 8 have been mentioned before that time.

I use the blueprint layed down in descriptions of the past in the Bible rather than anything difficult and the book of Rev. is best understood by the background from where its statements come from.

Why does it concern you so much that others should see things as you do.?

Churches come before Trumpets. Christ returns at the 7th trumpet. Christs gathering of the elect mortals are during the vials and the wicked are destroyed in the 7th vial.

I do not know what could be so simple, but the waters are muddied by teachings of the ideas of men before people are taught by the Lord.

But yes, women often do have a chip on their shoulder, and men rejected by the mainstream churches do too, as with any weaker or minority group, but we get over it, don,t we.

Merton.

It is not that others see things the way that I do, it is the truth must go out. Great deception is out there in the world today and the book of Revelation needs to be made easier to understand.

How come chapter 12 wasn't noted by "after" as in that it comes after ch 11?

There isn't any direct verse to verse linking and yet John didn't say - and after that I saw....

John makes it out as here is what he saw first.

a great wonder
another wonder

15:1
another sign
then at the end of this chapter
John knew that when seven plagues are fulfilled, men can enter the temple in heaven

Now look -for chapter 16 has problems too - as it won't link to chapter 15 and again - John didn't give us the message as to this is after the things of ch 15.

15 ends with plagues - seven of them fulfilled
ch 16 - takes us to the pouring of the vials
(But just where are the seven angels so they can begin this job)?

vinsight4u8
Aug 20th 2008, 02:37 AM
Hi azheis!

Thanks for such detailed info! I'm making me a copy!

Ron Brown
Aug 20th 2008, 05:36 AM
According to the pastoral epistles Paul wrote Timothy and Titus, women are not to have spiritual authority over any man. This then excludes women from pastoring and deaconing. However, preaching is not pastoring, nor is teaching. A woman can preach a message in church as long as she is under the covering of her pastor and husband. A woman can also teach a sunday school class with men in it. Preaching and teaching is not a leadership position, but pastoring and deaconing is.

matthew94
Aug 20th 2008, 05:54 AM
Certainly God does not contradict Himself. So we should first consider the whole tenor of Scripture. Miriam seems to have been given some authority in ancient Israel. Deborah was, apparently, the main human authority in Israel at one point. Not to mention some other examples. On the other hand, all 12 of the 12 were men. And we have no clear biblical record of any female overseers/elders.

The issue is not 'can women be in ministry?' They must be! All Christians are to minister. The issue also cannot be 'can women be pastors?' in the modern sense of the term 'pastor' for Scripture knows of no such thing as a modern day pastor. The issue is whether women can have authority over a man to teach in a public gathering of the church.

The passage can't mean that women are to remain completely silent in church services. This is not the meaning of the word translated silent (otherwise Christian men are to NEVER open their mouths at all according to an earlier verse in the same chapter! Further, women are said to be allowed to prophecy in 1 Cor. 11, seemingly during church gatherings). This passage also suggests that women can be deacons (as Phoebe was in Romans 16:1).

But can they be overseers/elders? Such had the responsibility of teaching in public gatherings. The passage seems to suggest they shouldn't. Can they teach children? Yes. Can they teach other women? Yes. Can they teach men in private? Perhaps yes again, as Priscilla's case suggests.

Some, of course, would argue that this disallowance was cultural, but the reasoning Paul gives is that Adam was created first and Eve sinned first. That's not a cultural reason that only applies to ancient emphasis, it's a historical reason that seems to apply to us all.

But my position is that Paul was stating the ideal. I don't think it is a sin for a woman to teach, even in authority over a man. I just don't think it is ideal. I think the reason God has sometimes called woman to teach over men (and I believe He sometimes has) is b/c so many men have refused their calling.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 09:58 AM
The Bible isn quite clear about this in 1 Cor 14, 1 Tim 2-3 among other places in that a woman shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man. So yes a woman is forbidden to teach publicly.

But unlike many Fundamentalists I believe a woman can pray out loud, can lead worship, can teach children in sunday school without a man present,etc..


Hi,

Women are not forbidden to speak publically about the Bible, to teach it or most anything else.

In the the assemblies or in teaching men then that is the mans job, and mainly of the elders

Shepherds of the sheep are not women, but women do minister to children in their care.

Sunday school is ok but the main benefit is to children whose parent/ or parents are non-believers.

Believing households should teach their own children, and frankly they can get turned right off church by sitting them down listening to things they do not understand.

The presence of children in meetings can stiffle the conversation somewhat, and there were different kinds of meetings which Jesus held.

The modern church services can be contrary to the purposes of Christ so often.

Merton.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 09:59 AM
You lack any Biblical authority. You are acting on your own will and not Gods.


[quote=poochie;1756085]

It is not pride - for a prideful person I'm not - nor would God use me if I was.

Have you ever looked closely at Rev. 15:1?

for here is the very first time that John wrote about a particular group of angels

My job was to be unique and major - those are the words given to me by the first person that God had told I was called and let me know it.

I was called by Him a few weeks or so earlier, but I had told no one.
Even when she said that God hardly ever has her do something like this - but He has showed her things as to a person and that He would use them. I was looking around to see just whom she meant. She goes, it is you. You are going to be used of God. I thought, what God? How did she know? You told her? Me being a new Christian - only a few months maybe, was wondering do You God always do this? What it is You want me to do?
I would come to realize that I'm to teach prophecy verses and show how they go together.
I began to intensely study the bible and make charts on my own. I never read a false prophet book, then. I told God that He is the Author - so no one else can teach me better than Him. Others soon began to come to me at stores and such and tell me - God will use you girl. You are called, chosen. God has a job for you to do. I was just out shopping and for many years of my life God sent messages to me about His plan for me to work for Him.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 10:02 AM
Poochie

Stop being do dogmatic and so legalistic. If this is your opinion then good but do not put down our members who do not agree with you by telling them what they should be doing. Enough of this backwards teaching about women in the church

You think I am legalistic? HAH HAH HAH!!!!

Why dont you try experiencing FUNDAMENTALIST culture for a change and then discover that I am the moderate.

I tell you what.

Try Pensacola Christian College for a semester. Even as a Graduate Student.

You will discover that I am the liberal/moderate.

Oh and one more thing.

Obeying the Bible is not legalism.

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 10:09 AM
If you believe that a woman can teach, preach and have authority over a man in a spiritual context then you are not a conservative Evangelical.

You are a liberal.

John MacArthur wrote a book called Different By design I'd seriouslyn consider checking it out.

John Piper and Wayen Grudem also wrote another book. Check it out as well.

Since FUDNAMENTALISTS do not debate this issue, there was no reason for me to buy it or to study more into this subject. Fundamentalists debate other issues and the role of women in the ministry is assumed and 100% of women around here agree with it.

What irritates me about them is that in some churches do women wear head coverings, and its not culture ediquette to speak with a man other than the one they are engaged too or married.





Just to clarify …I am not liberal nor am I liberal minded …..I have not changed the Word to fit the Left Coast theology. The Word is what it is, and says what it says. And despite what the outline states, culture does come into play for explanation purposes because the Bible is an Eastern Book ……… but the truth remains the same

We need to keep both Timothy and Corinthians within the context of which they were written.


I Timothy is a pastoral epistle written to the leadership in the church {note: when I use the word church I am speaking of the ekklesia “the called of God” “the body of Christ”, not a structure.} Therefore when reading this book we must keep in mind who it is addressing, and why. We cannot take a few verses out of their context and make them a general application to all women within the body of Christ; that is just poor workmanship of rightly dividing the Word.
We must also keep in mind cultural times. Here in Timothy, as well as I Corinthians 14:34 {dealing with the wives of the prophets} you have cultural standards that come into play.

Timothy is dealing with the leadership in the church, and specifically these verses in question are dealing with wives of the men of God in the leadership positions; responsible for teaching, and moving Gods word. We must read and understand these verses in that light, and not wretch them out of context to degrade women or put them in a false subservient light.
The whole context dictates that the men (husbands) were men of God with ministries as seen in 3:1 which is the more immediate context of these verses, and the remoter context of the book of Timothy


The following is a break-down of verses 9-15 I will post on I Corinthians separately
I Timothy 2:9-15
9: 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;

I Timothy 2:9 In like manner or “likewise”. You have to go back to verse 8 to find out what it’s referring to. Talking about husbands who were men of God praying everyplace “lifting up holy hands” which is a Figure of speech meaning “To have done all that can be done” speaking of the men of God praying in the previous verses. It now shifts to the women in doing all they can do.

The word also is not in any critical Greek text.

That women (Gr) gunę = wives – henceforth, the word woman is translated wives

adorn themselves (Gr) kosmeo it is the word transliterated over into our English as cosmos” It means orderly universe. To polish, or to beautifully cut out to carve in all perfection. Orderly like the stars that are set in their coarse, and like the paths of the seas, no collision. Its like all of God’s creation; that’s this word “adorn.”

{Other usages of kosmeo Luke 21:5, Titus 2:10, I Peter 3:3-5}

in modest apparel (Gr) kosmias the same root word as adorn.
Women are to adorn themselves adorningly {that’s probably not a real word} meaning well polished beautifully groomed, is the essence of what God is saying. It sets the woman with the man of God in all of its beauty and all of its greatness.

{I Timothy 3: 2 “of good behaviour” is the same word as kosmios}

With shamefacedness (Gr) aidôs = an inner grace. Manifesting the inner beauty of Christ in you, in your walk, your talk, and your manner of dress. One who recoils at anything unseemly, immoral or impure.

Sobriety ( Gr) sôphrosunę is self-restraint, habitual inner self-governing it’s the renewed mind dignified walk. Being an example in your walk because that man of God is your man, and you by your actions show the rest of the women in the household of God how they are to act or walk.

not – is conditional …….due to culture, the walk of a woman would vary.

broided hair (Gr) plegma hair-doo or gold, or pearls, or costly array
One example of this refers women who would have their hair put in the form of the temple, a horn or a tube that would go around the head made of gold studded with precious jewels. This would tie underneath the chin and over the top of the hair. At the back they would have braided cords of silk that would drop to the back of the knees, and at the bottom of those would be tassels of red silk, loaded with lead so the hair style would be tightened under the chin. ouch!


Verse 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.




But– Sets in contrast that which was preceding {broided hair, etc}

which becoumeth women – wives of the men of God

professing(Gr) epaggellomai To announce ones self

godliness = Wives showing themselves reverently godly, that is how you announce yourself. Wives are attractively dressed, sharp, cultured, but not to the end that your hot, or drawing attention to yourself through your costly array.

with good works – This Greek preposition indicates “with” as all the way through, not just the manner of dress, but the actions in your life. Doing what has just been stated, that’s “the good works.”

Verse 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.


Let the woman = wife of the man of God.

learn= to be informed, to understand to learn by study and observation.

in silence (Gr) hesuchia means – inner awareness, a quietness, tranquillity. It’s just the opposite of vociferous.
There is a time for a person to keep quiet and a time to speak. The context here is talking about “wives of the men of God”. With that inner awareness you will know when that time and palace is.

with all subjection = submission by loving obedience.
When the woman decided to marry the man she made a decision that the man would be the head of her, like God would be the head of the man. The wife has to become aware of the inner awareness of her man, just as the man is with God.


Verse 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.



but is the word “and”

i suffer(Gr) epitrepo means to direct, or instruct

not a woman = wives


to teach (Gr) didaske to debate. We get our word teacher from this Greek word. It’s used in the academic realm of a didactic coarse [a teaching coarse] But here is the beauty of this scripture. In our teaching methods there is no debate, but in the old Hebrew or the synagogue operation, anytime a teacher teaches, anybody who wants to get up and question him can do so. {God says - I instruct the wife not to debate in public with her man of God.} You can obviously see where this would belittle the man, showing great disrespect to the man of God, and the Word of God

nor= and not {emphatic}

to usurp authority over = to exercise power over, domineer.

the man = husband

but to be in silence – same word as in verse 11. “the inner awareness.”


Verse 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

For Adam was first formed then Eve – Adam was given authority and Eve was given to Adam as a companion. This doesn’t degrade the woman but rather just puts it in the order, which God formed, made, and created us.

Verse 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


And Adam was not deceived

But the woman {wife} being deceived = taken in, literally means baited by false statements which the adversary laid on her in Genesis. God’s just saying, look things haven’t changed, the adversary is still trying to pull the same stunts. That is why that word hesuchia {that inner awareness} is so vitally important in a woman’s walk, so that the woman is not trying to usurp authority over the man.


was in the

transgression– stepping aside from doing right. Even though Adam wasn’t deceived, it was because she was his companion, and when she was baited he went down to her level. This will generally always be true with a man.


Cont'd

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 10:14 AM
The Bible is quite clear about this. Its BLACK AND WHITE. Women shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man in any context.

This is a Evangelical web board and I came here because I am tired of the legalism many Fundamentalists dish out.

I am consdiered a liberal/moderate among Fundamentalists who forbid women to speak at all in the church for the most part. I believe women can lead worship and they can give their testimonies. Many Fundamentalists do not.



Certainly God does not contradict Himself. So we should first consider the whole tenor of Scripture. Miriam seems to have been given some authority in ancient Israel. Deborah was, apparently, the main human authority in Israel at one point. Not to mention some other examples. On the other hand, all 12 of the 12 were men. And we have no clear biblical record of any female overseers/elders.

The issue is not 'can women be in ministry?' They must be! All Christians are to minister. The issue also cannot be 'can women be pastors?' in the modern sense of the term 'pastor' for Scripture knows of no such thing as a modern day pastor. The issue is whether women can have authority over a man to teach in a public gathering of the church.

The passage can't mean that women are to remain completely silent in church services. This is not the meaning of the word translated silent (otherwise Christian men are to NEVER open their mouths at all according to an earlier verse in the same chapter! Further, women are said to be allowed to prophecy in 1 Cor. 11, seemingly during church gatherings). This passage also suggests that women can be deacons (as Phoebe was in Romans 16:1).

But can they be overseers/elders? Such had the responsibility of teaching in public gatherings. The passage seems to suggest they shouldn't. Can they teach children? Yes. Can they teach other women? Yes. Can they teach men in private? Perhaps yes again, as Priscilla's case suggests.

Some, of course, would argue that this disallowance was cultural, but the reasoning Paul gives is that Adam was created first and Eve sinned first. That's not a cultural reason that only applies to ancient emphasis, it's a historical reason that seems to apply to us all.

But my position is that Paul was stating the ideal. I don't think it is a sin for a woman to teach, even in authority over a man. I just don't think it is ideal. I think the reason God has sometimes called woman to teach over men (and I believe He sometimes has) is b/c so many men have refused their calling.

ikester7579
Aug 20th 2008, 11:19 AM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14

Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

I disagree on all counts, and here is why.

1) Who was the first person to preach the gospel? A woman. Christ Himself instructed her to go tell the deciples He had risen. If a woman was not supposed to spread such news, why would Christ do this? He could have appeared to any man just as easily and got the job done. But instead, from Christ's own mouth. He instructs a woman to do this. In my opinion, this supercedes any other interpretation because Christ over rules it.

2) John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

What the verse above means is that Father God controls the drawing power to His Son. This also means that in order for "any ministry" to have drawing power. It first has to be approved of by God.

So let's take the example of the biggest womans ministry (Joyce). I watch her preach at a conference on TV. At the end of the conference she did an alter call and led between 500-1000 people to Christ who stepped forward.

Now the question to you is: Who drew these people forward for salvation?
1) Satan?
2) Father God?

It cannot be Satan because:
mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

mk 3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

lk 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

Satan cannot work against himself. Allowing people to be saved means he loses. This is said three times in three verses, so it's a trinity which means it has special meaning. So if you say Satan, you not only deny these three verses, but the power of what three means in the word of God.

3) Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

God's leeway. Man is not perfect. There is no perfect doctrine of man. No perfect prechers, no perfect churches, no perfect Christians, etc... For our imperfections, God has to have leeway for us. To judge an action, ministry, music, another person, tattoos, etc... As if you know what God's leeway is. Is placing youself in God's place as if you know His mind.

God's approval for any ministry is God's Draw to His Son, period. His actions on that part supercedes mine or your opinion. His action alone shows He approves. For unless you can provide an alternative drawing power for The Son of God through some type of evil, then you are mistaken.

Example: Not for debate. Many Christians believe that God created the evolution process for creation. Just as science explains it. So to be approved of by God, as an act of God. Evolution should have the drawing power to God's Son. So we should have evolution crusades like Billy Graham. We should have sermons on evolution that draws 1000's to Christ like Joyce. We should have evolution missionaries saving the world and helping third world conuntries.

But we don't because evolution, the way science explains it, is not the way God did it. So God's leeway does not cover this, so evolution will never draw anyone to the Son of God.

So what I'm trying to tell you is: If any ministry falls within God's leeway that is provided for our imperfections. God will allow it to draw people to the Son for salvation. What God allows, man should not deny.

seamus414
Aug 20th 2008, 12:38 PM
The Bible is quite clear about this. Its BLACK AND WHITE. Women shall not teach, preach or have authority over a man in any context.

This is a Evangelical web board and I came here because I am tired of the legalism many Fundamentalists dish out.

I am consdiered a liberal/moderate among Fundamentalists who forbid women to speak at all in the church for the most part. I believe women can lead worship and they can give their testimonies. Many Fundamentalists do not.


You would be more convincing if you actually responded to these well reasoned arguments instead of stamping your foot and essentially saying "I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!"

seamus414
Aug 20th 2008, 12:39 PM
Here is a pretty comprehensive and fairly definitive study on the matter. It is not terribly long and can probably be read in about an hour or so if you do not read the footnotes. If you have time check it out and share your thoughts:

http://www.theamia.org/assets/AMiA-Womens-Ordination-Study-Aug-03.pdf

seamus414
Aug 20th 2008, 12:44 PM
Question for you guys:

I presume no one here believes in Apostolic Succession and the traditional theology of the sacraments. If you do, then the only person who can administer the sacraments is a validly ordained individual. If someone is not validly ordained (i.e.: potentially a woman) than the rites administered by that person are not sacraments, just vain action. That is a heavy consequence if you believe in sacraments.

As I presume no one believes the above here, the consequence to a learned and godly woman preaching/teaching on the Bible accurately is what? Those hearing her would receive accurate Biblical knowledge and training. Did not Jesus say something like he who is not against us is for us? A woman pastor can be very much for Jesus and preach his word. What is wrong with that?

My point:
If you accept sacramentalism, the debate is very significant as it could cut you off from the sacraments. If you reject sacramentalism, so what if you have a woman pastor? There is no negative consequence to you if she is biblical in her teaching.

seamus414
Aug 20th 2008, 12:46 PM
Just a quick observation:

Denominations with female clergy above the order of deacon have 2 things in common: (1) they liberalize and (2) they shrink. There has never been a denomination which introduced female clergy to significantly grow or maintain doctrinal integrity.

matthew94
Aug 20th 2008, 02:21 PM
Just a quick observation:

Denominations with female clergy above the order of deacon have 2 things in common: (1) they liberalize and (2) they shrink. There has never been a denomination which introduced female clergy to significantly grow or maintain doctrinal integrity.

Well, I can't really say that observation holds true. I am familiar with a number of denominations that have remained theologically conservative and growing in number while ordaining women. (nazarene, wesleyan, some pentecostal branches, etc).

turtledove
Aug 20th 2008, 02:27 PM
Well, I can't really say that observation holds true. I am familiar with a number of denominations that have remained theologically conservative and growing in number while ordaining women. (nazarene, wesleyan, some pentecostal branches, etc).

Adding the International Church of the Four Square Gospel to this.

seamus414
Aug 20th 2008, 02:27 PM
Well, I can't really say that observation holds true. I am familiar with a number of denominations that have remained theologically conservative and growing in number while ordaining women. (nazarene, wesleyan, some pentecostal branches, etc).

Ok, maybe I was too broard, but certainly among mainstream denominations and in general: methodists, Prebysterians, Episcopalians, and Baptists who have introduced women have suffered greatly.

flybaby
Aug 20th 2008, 07:23 PM
You think I am legalistic? HAH HAH HAH!!!!

Why dont you try experiencing FUNDAMENTALIST culture for a change and then discover that I am the moderate.

I tell you what.

Try Pensacola Christian College for a semester. Even as a Graduate Student.

You will discover that I am the liberal/moderate.

Oh and one more thing.

Obeying the Bible is not legalism.

OT:

I was at Pensacola Christian College for 2 1/2 years - it wasn't much different from the rules I was used to following....

OldChurchGuy
Aug 20th 2008, 09:49 PM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14
Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

A sentence in the introduction reads: "The teachings are to all churches of all time."

How was this conclusion reached?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

poochie
Aug 20th 2008, 10:22 PM
For me the Bible is the Word of God and is relevant for my life today.

For you the Bible is a culture book that is not relevant for your ministry and life.

This is the difference between you and me.

I may not be a Fundamentalist, but I do believe in the Bible and hold to it and its black and white teachings.


A sentence in the introduction reads: "The teachings are to all churches of all time."

How was this conclusion reached?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

azheis
Aug 20th 2008, 10:32 PM
If you believe that a woman can teach, preach and have authority over a man in a spiritual context then you are not a conservative Evangelical.

You are a liberal.

John MacArthur wrote a book called Different By design I'd seriouslyn consider checking it out.

John Piper and Wayen Grudem also wrote another book. Check it out as well.

Since FUDNAMENTALISTS do not debate this issue, there was no reason for me to buy it or to study more into this subject. Fundamentalists debate other issues and the role of women in the ministry is assumed and 100% of women around here agree with it.

What irritates me about them is that in some churches do women wear head coverings, and its not culture ediquette to speak with a man other than the one they are engaged too or married.

Poochie
I think you are reading into what I stated. I never said that a woman has authority over a man……. I think there are very few women who want that anyhow, although they may assert the roll of head of the household, if their man does not walk according to the Word.

Also I really don’t care what you label me as…… if I am a liberal, then God is a liberal, because all I did was give you the truth from the Word of God. You can accept it or reject it, but at least take the time to work it from a neutral perspective rather than a presuppositional point of view.

It really doesn’t matter to me what others write about the Word, although both MacArthur and Piper are great men. What matters to me is the bottom line, the final authority, and that is ……………what is written. Not what specific groups teach or what people accept and practice …………. but what does the Word state.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God Bless
azheis

ikester7579
Aug 20th 2008, 11:29 PM
You would be more convincing if you actually responded to these well reasoned arguments instead of stamping your foot and essentially saying "I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!"

I agree.

Poochie:

Not wanting to see that the first preacher for the new covenant was a woman, is denying the word of God. Telling people that Christ has risen, is spreading the good news (the gospel). Which is preaching.

When Mary went to the deciples, they were gathered in a room (congregation gathering because they all believed). So this would be considered a church like gathering. So who shows up preaching the good news? Mary does.

And out of all things. Who also shows up to reconfirm the good news that she just told them? Christ did.

1) So we have Christ telling a woman to spread the good news.
2) She preaches it to a gathering of believers.
3) Christ Himself shows up to confirm what she just said.

That is more confirmation of a woman being able to preach from the Son of God than all the verses you could ever find against it.

Questions:

1) Can Christ enact a sin by telling someone to go do a sin? If not, then why did He tell Mary to go preach the good news?
2) Can Mary go preach the good news to the first church congregation of believers, unless God told her to?
3) Would Christ go and reaffirm that a sin is okay, by showing up to reaffirm what was preached?

If it is wrong, it is wrong. And Christ would not have been involved at all. But he told her to, then reconfirmed what she said.

You may not have realized that all of this actually happened and would have such a meaning as pointed out. But your thread here disagrees with what Christ did. Who would you say has made a mistake?

OldChurchGuy
Aug 21st 2008, 02:09 AM
For me the Bible is the Word of God and is relevant for my life today.

For you the Bible is a culture book that is not relevant for your ministry and life.

This is the difference between you and me.

I may not be a Fundamentalist, but I do believe in the Bible and hold to it and its black and white teachings.

I am impressed with your certainty of my theology from one question. So, how did you reach this conclusion based on my one question?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

The Parson
Aug 21st 2008, 02:23 AM
Hate to be a wet noodle but please be respectful in this thread.

azheis
Aug 21st 2008, 02:47 AM
Hate to be a wet noodle but please be respectful in this thread.


Well if that wasn’t directed at me ….it should have been
In haste I submitted my last post which I normally never do without have a second look at it ….. Now after looking at it again, it comes across as rather callous. ….That is not me, and that is not my heart; so I apologize to you poochie, sometimes I get a little excited.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God Bless
azheis

ikester7579
Aug 21st 2008, 03:15 AM
Hate to be a wet noodle but please be respectful in this thread.

It was probably directed at me. I should have made this comment:


Who would you say has made a mistake?

More clear. I was referring to what Christ did in God's and what is being said in this thread.

Sorry if that was misunderstood.

EaglesWINGS911
Aug 21st 2008, 03:16 AM
Ok this is really funny because my fiance and I were just discussing this the other day. Both of us were raised in very traditional churches with VERY STRONG traditions. I baptist and he church of Christ. Well he mentioned that a little boy, age 10, has been reading scripture and leading songs in the service. I don't have a problem with this except for the fact that NO WOMEN are allowed to do this in his church because it's seen as a position of "authority". In short I think it's baloney and I think it's extremely offensive and demeaning of women to place a male child over them and say that he is more qualified to read scripture or lead a song than a lady or young woman in the church. Did Christ do things like this? I don't think so. He agrees with this because this is what he was raised to believe, but he is just starting to question it since I raised some questions for him.
If women are to NEVER preach or have any position of authority over men, and this speaks to all women nowadays...then there would be no female teachers, no female doctors, no female CEO's, no females at all in positions of leadership and authority. I have never been in a church with a female pastor and I am not certain as to whether or not women can fulfill this role. However I do know of a lady in China who is a Pastor of a house church..I sincerely doubt that she is going against the will of God by doing this. I do believe men are to be the leaders since God created them to do this,and I think when men fulfill this role in a Christlike manner..which is a SERVANT leader, not a judgemental legalistic dictator, then it actually takes pressure off of women and we can focus on other important things. I think it's really demeaning as a woman, to come out of the world which basically views women as nothing but a sex toy and "smart" women use that to their supposed advantage, and then I enter a church which tells me to sit down and shut up, because I am a woman and therefore, I am not qualified for any service in the church.

The Parson
Aug 21st 2008, 03:22 AM
Come on brethren. Stop trying to guess who it was directed at my dear brothers. These ladies are our sisters. The bible says: 1st Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; 5:2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

When I speak to a elder sister, my responce to her is yes ma'am and no ma'am. The same with the younger. If we treat them with respect, they will feel more encouraged to be what we respect them to be and what the Lord expects them to be as well. Get my meaning???

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 03:25 AM
I think it's really demeaning as a woman, to come out of the world which basically views women as nothing but a sex toy and "smart" women use that to their supposed advantage, and then I enter a church which tells me to sit down and shut up, because I am a woman and therefore, I am not qualified for any service in the church.

If you are in a church like this, run away very quickly.

In the pastoral epistles Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, the only thing a woman is not to do in Church is Pastor or Deacon. She cannot have spiritual authority over a man, but a woman preaching and teaching in her church, under the cover of her pastor and husband, is not taking spiritual authority over any man. A preacher is not a pastor. If I go preach a revival at a church, I am not their pastor, I am just a preacher. I am not taking spiritual authority over any of the congregation, their pastor and the deacons is the head of their flock.

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 03:48 AM
I do not believe that a woman should be completely passive in the church (ie changing diapers all the time, cooking, cleaning,etc..). However the Bible is quite clear in that they should not preach or teach or have spiritual authority over a man (1 Tim, 1 Cor 14).

Liberals and Charismatics will disagree but they do because they have itching ears.



I think it's really demeaning as a woman, to come out of the world which basically views women as nothing but a sex toy and "smart" women use that to their supposed advantage, and then I enter a church which tells me to sit down and shut up, because I am a woman and therefore, I am not qualified for any service in the church.[/quote]

EaglesWINGS911
Aug 21st 2008, 03:50 AM
I'm neither Liberal nor Charismatic, and my ears don't itch..well not most of the time ;) lol. Just a Christian following the Bible to the best of my understanding.

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 03:51 AM
But the Bible also says that a woman shall not preach, teach or have authority over a man.

1Tim. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


If you are in a church like this, run away very quickly.

In the pastoral epistles Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, the only thing a woman is not to do in Church is Pastor or Deacon. She cannot have spiritual authority over a man, but a woman preaching and teaching in her church, under the cover of her pastor and husband, is not taking spiritual authority over any man. A preacher is not a pastor. If I go preach a revival at a church, I am not their pastor, I am just a preacher. I am not taking spiritual authority over any of the congregation, their pastor and the deacons is the head of their flock.

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 03:52 AM
If you believe women can be pastors and teachers over men, then you are not a conservative, its as simple as that.



I'm neither Liberal nor Charismatic, and my ears don't itch..well not most of the time ;) lol. Just a Christian following the Bible to the best of my understanding.

EaglesWINGS911
Aug 21st 2008, 04:02 AM
HAHA! Brother, you're making a lot of snap judgements on people just based on the fact that they don't agree with your interpretation of the Word.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."-Matt.7:1-2
"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?"-James 4:12

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 10:01 AM
You misinterpret the passages you cite. They refer to "hypocritical judgments" not judgments based on doctrine.

If I were to say that your walk with Christ was shallow and your testimony needs improvement because you went and saw Prince Caspian, or if I were to say that your testimony needs improvement because you do not dress in a skirt all the time but wear pants then these would be examples of hypocritical judgments.

And once a Fundamentalist questioned my testimony because I did not always perform a wash after I left the restroom. But I told him that sometimes when I go into the restroom I look at myself in the mirror, comb my hair or such. But to make them all happy I perform a wash even if I go in there just to look at myself in the mirror.


HAHA! Brother, you're making a lot of snap judgements on people just based on the fact that they don't agree with your interpretation of the Word.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."-Matt.7:1-2
"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?"-James 4:12

seamus414
Aug 21st 2008, 12:17 PM
My wife and I are borderline on this issue, we do not think the Scriptures are totally clear on the matter.

In saying that, my wife believes that the Bible teaches that the husband is the spiritual head of the family. She then wonders, if the wife is a clergywoman - therefore having spiritual authority in the church - does that wife/clergywoman, a "superior" in church, become a "subordinate" in the marital home? How would that play out? It may be a little conflicting and confusing.

(before anyone gets bent, note the quotation marks - I was looking for different terms but this is the best way to describe it I think so do not take it too literally)

seamus414
Aug 21st 2008, 12:25 PM
I think Matthew94 is often a voice of reason and I think his point is a good one: this is a fallen world and male headship may be the ideal but not always workable and therefore a woman can serve the role.

On a related note, here's a question for you folks: are you an impossiblist? In other words, is it possible for a woman to be clergy just not appropriate and possibly sinful? Or is it impossible for a woman ever to be clergy?

seamus414
Aug 21st 2008, 12:26 PM
Something else people have not considered: a pastor represents the Christ and the Church to the believer. TO use Paul's words, an ambassador. That pastor has taken the responsibility of publicly representing CHrist to others as his mission. Christ is a man and only selected other men to take on that role therefore his representitive should be a man.

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 04:23 PM
The scripture is as clear as crystal on this issue. Its only satan who deceives people into thinking otherwise.

1Tim. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


My wife and I are borderline on this issue, we do not think the Scriptures are totally clear on the matter.

In saying that, my wife believes that the Bible teaches that the husband is the spiritual head of the family. She then wonders, if the wife is a clergywoman - therefore having spiritual authority in the church - does that wife/clergywoman, a "superior" in church, become a "subordinate" in the marital home? How would that play out? It may be a little conflicting and confusing.

(before anyone gets bent, note the quotation marks - I was looking for different terms but this is the best way to describe it I think so do not take it too literally)

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 04:24 PM
Christ is not a man, Christ is God. Do you really believe that Christ is a man and died as such and has no divine powers because he was only a man?



Something else people have not considered: a pastor represents the Christ and the Church to the believer. TO use Paul's words, an ambassador. That pastor has taken the responsibility of publicly representing CHrist to others as his mission. Christ is a man and only selected other men to take on that role therefore his representitive should be a man.

Cynthia
Aug 21st 2008, 04:25 PM
If you are in a church like this, run away very quickly.

In the pastoral epistles Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, the only thing a woman is not to do in Church is Pastor or Deacon. She cannot have spiritual authority over a man, but a woman preaching and teaching in her church, under the cover of her pastor and husband, is not taking spiritual authority over any man. A preacher is not a pastor. If I go preach a revival at a church, I am not their pastor, I am just a preacher. I am not taking spiritual authority over any of the congregation, their pastor and the deacons is the head of their flock.

What is your definition of a Pastor?
What does it mean to have spiritual authority over someone? What is the role and responsiblities of a spiritual authority?

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 04:28 PM
Christ is not a man, Christ is God. Do you really believe that Christ is a man and died as such and has no divine powers because he was only a man?

Christ is 100% man

Christ is also 100% God

Christ is the God man. The Logos. The second Adam. The only begotten of God.

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 04:33 PM
Amen to that brother.


Christ is 100% man

Christ is also 100% God

Christ is the God man. The Logos. The second Adam. The only begotten of God.

Br. Barnabas
Aug 21st 2008, 05:45 PM
Why am I misled? Can you show me chapter and verse that say women can be pastors and have spiritual authority over a man? Please show me where it is so I can improve.

If you look at the role that women played in Paul's ministry you will see that you are mislead.

Romans 16 Pheoebe is a deacon thus she holds authority over men. Junias Paul's relative was in Christ before him and was an apostle. Tryphena and Tryphosa, these women worked hard in the Lord. Persis, another woman who worked very hard in the Lord.

There is also the example of Philip's daughters who where prophets and told Paul what to do.

Do you really think that women would have been so willing to follow Paul and help him out if they were not able to do anything in his ministry?

There are also a number of churches that disagree with you. Because there are a number of churches where women are pastors, priests, or leaders. Also these traditionsa have not just started this it has been around for a long time and they have had women in leadership positions for a long time. Instead of taking one very hard to understand passage and doing your own exegesis on it, why not look at some of the other passages that are much easier to understand and see that they disagree with you. Also I would suggest learning about and understanding the cultural settings of the NT. So that it is easier to properly understand when Paul or any other author is talking about a cultural problem or a problem in one city as opposed to a doctrinal problem or anything like that.

seamus414
Aug 21st 2008, 06:12 PM
Christ is not a man, Christ is God. Do you really believe that Christ is a man and died as such and has no divine powers because he was only a man?

You have a very bad habit of taking one sentence of someone's post, reading it in isolation how you wish to understand it, and then attack them with it accusing them of some sort of false teaching based on gross assumptions. I suggest you refrain from this behavior as it does not advance the conversation and does not reflect well on you.

I never said Jesus was "only a man" and had "no divine powers" did I? Why would you draw such a conclusion?

I thought you would agree with my post as it supports a restriction on women's ordination.

To say "Christ is not a man" as you have said above is abject heresy. It is basic Christian teaching that Christ is 100% human (while also being 100% God). So, Christ IS A MAN.

Truths about Christ which I, and you ought to, believe: (1) the only-begotten Son of God; (2) begotten of the Father before all worlds; (3) Light of Light; (4) very God of very God; (5) begotten, not made; (6) being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were mad; (7) who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

vinsight4u8
Aug 21st 2008, 07:37 PM
Just wanted to let you know that if you don't mind learning from a lady called by God...
there is no waiting in line now at the thread

called
Don't miss John's sealed book detour


End times Chat section

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 11:06 PM
I've already done my research on this topic. But to prove my point read my paper.

Throughout the ages, much debate has arisen regarding a woman's role in the church. Many conservatives have taken Paul's instructions literally on a woman's role in the church from 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians in regards to this issue. However, others do not simply take a literal exegesis from these passages, but take a different exegesis from Paul's instructions. They argue that one cannot overlook the many obstacles in interpreting the Bible for today. I agree that obstacles such as time, language, place, and culture should not be overlooked in any hermeneutics. However, there is no reason for a reader to add their own eisegesis rather than taking Paul's instructions on a woman's role in the church literally. I personally believe that women should not be allowed to teach or preach with men present or have any type of authority over a man in the church. This is my understanding from carefully reading scripture, and books by my favorite bible teacher John MacArthur and other established theologians. Therefore, to my understanding, scripture clearly teaches that women were made by God for roles & purposes different from men's; Paul forbids women to teach or have authority over men in a church setting; and Jesus did not allow culture to control his decisions, so we should not allow culture to control the church.
Man was chosen in the creation account to lead over women. In Genesis, we learn that both man and woman were created in the image of God. Then we get to chapter 2, which informs the reader that God commanded man to be the leader over woman as God commanded man to work the garden, and name the animals and he made the woman a helper to Adam.
After God's establishment of man as the leader in chapter 2, we learn about the fall in Genesis 3, and God's curses. Because of the fall, the image of God created in mankind was marred. In verse 16, God tells the woman that her desire will be for her husband. But God is clearly talking about a marriage relationship, and in it, the woman will have trouble and anguish instead of joy and blessing (MacArthur 1994, 22). Some interpret this verse as the beginning of man's leadership over women, but they overlook that verse 16 is referring to problems in the marriage relationship, not the beginning of man's authority over women. Gen. 2 spells out that the man was designed to be the leader over the woman. However, biblical scholar Gilbert Bilezikian does not think men are to lead women. He says, "There is no hint, not even a whisper about anything like a hierarchical order existing between man and woman in the creation account of Genesis chapters 1 and 2" (Bilezikian, n.d.).
What Bilezikian seems to miss are the times when God referred to the man as the leader. For example, even before God curses them, He calls to Adam first before Eve (3:9), signifying Adam to be the leader. Nowhere in the creation account did God ever indicate there is a hierarchy of value between men and women. It is not a negative judgment nor prejudice to acknowledge that women were created for different tasks, which include submitting to man's leadership. However, biblical Feminist Jay Grady thinks that women are not to submit to the leadership of men: "Gender prejudice has been at the core of fallen human nature since the Garden of Eden, and we see its effects everywhere. It is the way of the world. It has been encoded in all the world's religions"(Grady 2000,180). In his book, Grady argues that not allowing women to teach or have authority over men is purely a cultural issue that was being addressed by Paul in his letters. Grady has ignored 1 Corinthians 14:33, in which Paul addresses God's instructions on a woman's role in the church to all the congregations of the saints. The clear role distinctions of men and women from the creation account are obvious from reading Dr. MacArthur's teachings.
Dr. John MacArthur says that women were by design the followers, and so Satan cleverly attacked the weaker target. "Bypassing the leadership of the man, the serpent went after the woman, who was by design the follower. He promised Eve that if she ate the forbidden fruit she would not die as God had warned, but that, in fact, she would be a god herself" (MacArthur 1994, 21). Some argue that the fall was the start of the curse of women's submission to men. But Dr. MacArthur clears this misunderstanding, saying: "With the fall and its curse, came the distortion of woman's proper submissiveness and of man's proper authority. That is where the battle of the sexes began, where women's liberation movements and male chauvinism was born" (MacArthur 1994, 23). Some men have a sinful lifestyle of treating women like they are less valuable, and some women have a sinful habit of not obeying man's authority. Therefore, some women have undermined man's authority in the church. In my opinion, this authority conflict has resulted in a malodorous gospel message, polluted by Feminists who avoid the instructions by the apostle Paul in the New Testament.
Paul commanded that women not teach or have any type of authority over men in his letters. Some in the Church claim that the writings of Paul regarding women clergy are cultural issues. But these individuals have not considered the importance of 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 14:33, or 1 Cor. 14:37. By looking at these scriptures, we can see their relevance today. In 2 Tim 3:16, Paul says that all scripture is God breathed, and to be used for correction. This means that it's not possible to throw out Paul's instructions on a woman's role in the church. In 1 Cor. 14:33, Paul addresses God's instructions on a woman's role in the church to all the congregations of the saints. In 1 Cor. 14:37, after Paul instructs those in the Corinth church how women should act in the church, he tells them that what he instructs is the Lord's command. Also in the opening of Paul's letter to the Corinthian church in 1 Cor.1:2, he says that his letter is to all those who call on the name of Jesus for salvation. In Paul's first letter to Timothy he gives instructions on a woman's behaviors in the church; in 2:9-15, and near the end of the letter Paul commands that his instructions be kept until the coming of Jesus Christ. Grady thinks that 1 Tim. 2:12 is not to be taken literally, saying that people who do so take pride in being biblical literalists (Grady 2000, 53). Grady does make something of a point, as we cannot take the entire Bible literally. Jesus' parables and other biblical passages such as Revelation are meant to be interpreted using allegorical exegesis and not taken literally. Theologian Gordon Hugenberger thinks that Paul's commands in his letters on a woman's role in the church need to be looked at with a different exegesis as he thinks that wives need to submit to their husbands only in the family context, and not anywhere else. "The point is, rather, that a wife's responsibility to be submissive is precisely limited to familial concerns…" (Hugenberger 1992, 73). I think Hugenberger makes some good points in his essay, as Paul gave instructions on women being submissive to men in family scenarios. But Hugenberger limits submissiveness of women only to a family context and does not include the church. This is not what Paul was commanding, and I feel Hugenberger is teaching a fallacy.
While Hugenberger & many others can say all they wish about the commands of the Lord, it is still a difficult topic to discuss. Tim Bayly of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says:


It's difficult to create a safe space for the discussion of these spiritual commands, since the church of our time seems intent upon eradicating any vestige of female deference. Yet, efforts to evade this responsibility by claiming that these commands pertain only to ancient patriarchal cultures are double-edged swords. The same argument can be made concerning endless other texts" (Bayly, n.d.).Other theologians such as Robert Saucy agree that a woman is not to teach or have leadership over a man: "Scripture teaches the ultimate leadership of the church by men and therefore prohibits women from exercising teaching that has authority over men" (Saucy 1994, 97). However, Stephen Lowe thinks that women are to fully participate in every type of ministry, including teaching men. He says, "full participation of women in all ministry functions is the new creation ideal, which is constrained only by the realities of a hostile target culture that may as yet be unwilling to permit women such freedom" (Lowe 1991, 73). In my opinion, Saucy is correct, and women cannot teach men. The Adam of the New Testament set the ultimate example.
Just as Jesus did not allow the culture to control his decisions, so we are not to allow culture to control the church. Typology can be used to understand Jesus' life. Adam is the type, and Jesus is the antitype. Both came into this world as male leaders without sin, but Jesus did not sin. Jesus did not come to earth to please the world, though some pastors today wish to please their audience to avoid offending people. Craig Gay says, "North American character has since become primarily 'other-directed,' in the sense that we now rely mostly upon the crowd and upon the mass media to tell us who we are and what is worth pursuing at any given moment" (Gay 1998, 214). Is culture controlling the church, by allowing the Woman's rights movement's teachings to transform the church? If so, it's no surprise that many Christians want women in the pulpits! Jesus in no way wished to please the heresies of his culture, but rather opposed the teachers of them, as he called the religious leaders "Hypocrites, and blind guides" in Matt. 15:14, and Matt. 15:7. Kim Pennington of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says, "Jesus was only committed to obeying the will of God (John 6:38). Had the will of God included female apostles, Jesus certainly would have selected some, but He did not" (Pennington) &emdash; nor should we.
There is no place for a woman over a man in the church neither as a teacher nor as an elder. As Paul instructs there is no excuse for a woman to become a teacher or elder over a man. There is nothing wrong with a woman giving a testimony to a group of believers, but its plainly wrong to have them lead or teach men in a church setting. For example, in my own experiences I have noted that many women do not think its necessary to preach a message like "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near." Rather many women approach sinners only in love, and this undermines God's other attributes. Therefore, a balanced message is lacking. This is one of the many factors of a weak contemporary church, which has undermined the teachings of Paul. As pointed out in Genesis women were made by God for different roles than men but this in no way means they are inferior to men. Jesus and many other biblical heroes set the regulations for women being submissive to men by their words and nonverbal behaviors. The evidence is in the Bible, people just need to allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate the truth to them.
OTHER REFERENCES
Bayly, Tim. 1999. Service and Silence [on-line]. Louisville, KY: available from http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/silenceandservice.html; Internet; accessed 1 October 2002.

Bilezekian, Gilbert. [-] A Challenge for Proponents of Female Subordination To Prove Their Case from the Bible. [on-line]. Minneapolis, MN: available from http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/challenge.html; Internet; accessed 30 September 2002.

Gay, Craig. 1998. The Way of the Modern World. Colorado: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Grady, Lee. 2000. 10 Lies the Church Tells Women. Florida: Charisma House.

Hugenberger, Gordon P. 1992. Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A survey of Approaches to 1 Tim 2:8-16. Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society 35 no.3 (September): 341-360.

Lowe, Stephen D. 1991. Rethinking the Female Status/Function Question: The Jew/Gentile relationship as Paradign. Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 34 no.1 (March): 59-75.

MacArthur, John. 1994. Different By Design. Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing.

Pennington, Kim. [-] Able to Teach and Complementarian? [on-line]. Louisville, KY: available from http://www.cbmw.org/resources/women/abletoteach.html; Internet; accessed 1 October 2002.

Saucy, Robert L. 1994. Women’s Prohibition to Teach Men: An Investigation into Its Meaning and Contemporary Application. Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society 37 no.1 (March): 79-97.




If you look at the role that women played in Paul's ministry you will see that you are mislead.

Romans 16 Pheoebe is a deacon thus she holds authority over men. Junias Paul's relative was in Christ before him and was an apostle. Tryphena and Tryphosa, these women worked hard in the Lord. Persis, another woman who worked very hard in the Lord.

There is also the example of Philip's daughters who where prophets and told Paul what to do.

Do you really think that women would have been so willing to follow Paul and help him out if they were not able to do anything in his ministry?

There are also a number of churches that disagree with you. Because there are a number of churches where women are pastors, priests, or leaders. Also these traditionsa have not just started this it has been around for a long time and they have had women in leadership positions for a long time. Instead of taking one very hard to understand passage and doing your own exegesis on it, why not look at some of the other passages that are much easier to understand and see that they disagree with you. Also I would suggest learning about and understanding the cultural settings of the NT. So that it is easier to properly understand when Paul or any other author is talking about a cultural problem or a problem in one city as opposed to a doctrinal problem or anything like that.

livingwaters
Aug 21st 2008, 11:52 PM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

That just amazes me!!! So, if one has an unsaved husband, she should only teach him math, social skills, and history....that's soooooooooooo wrong!!!

God Bless!!!:hug:

poochie
Aug 21st 2008, 11:55 PM
The context is in the formal church gathering.


That just amazes me!!! So, if one has an unsaved husband, she should only teach him math, social skills, and history....that's soooooooooooo wrong!!!

God Bless!!!:hug:

livingwaters
Aug 22nd 2008, 12:06 AM
I think if Jesus calls someone to preach, man or woman, they should obey!!! Who are we to tell someone to disobey Jesus' calling on their lives?? I would prefer someone listen to Jesus than to me. After all, HE is the BOSS!! HE blesses obedience.

As Christians, maybe our responses should be more compassionate....but, please, you don't have tickle my ears at all, Poochie~~~~:)

Because I read and understand the place of women in the WORD!!!! After all, look at Mary. She defied all human understanding.Amen. And God chose her. I don't think she was slighted for being a woman, at least not by the ONE who mattered.

However, to ensure orderly meetings, I might understand that an Apostle might say, let the woman ask her husband about whatever questions she had regarding the Word.

Some homes are comprised of just a woman and her children....so, if she can't preach/teach to her children, who will. :hmm:

That will be my last comment on this subject. As I surely do not want to offend anyone with words.

God Bless!:hug:

Cynthia
Aug 22nd 2008, 03:48 PM
Mark 16:17, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils..."
Mark 16:17-18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Mark 13:34, "For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch."
Jesus said that those who believe will have the Holy Ghost flowing out of their innermost being (John 7:38-39)

It seems to me that the Bible teaches whoever believe in him has Spirtual Authority to do a whole host of things...heal the sick, cast out Demons, and spread the word.

He gave authority to all his servants, not just the male servants.

Emanate
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:00 PM
To those who live by "Every Word" (including Torah) we find this passage:

Proverbs 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

A woman is instructed to teach in certain circumstances.

John146
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:41 PM
I can't name a man at the moment that knows the bible better than I do. I don't need taught, for I have done the study part mostly already.

The job now - is to go forth and warn the church Jesus will come during the 7th trumpet. I hope to meet up with some others someday that have the depth of knowledge like I do.Rom 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.

ikester7579
Aug 23rd 2008, 10:25 AM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14 Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

So when I saw a Joyce Meyer conference, and between 500-1000 people came forward to accept Christ. And she lead them in a sinner's prayer.

1) Would they be considered saved, or not?
2) What was it that drew them forward for salvation? God, or Satan?

And using scripture, how would you back up each of your answers?

And here is my post that you missed responding to:


Not wanting to see that the first preacher for the new covenant was a woman, is denying the word of God. Telling people that Christ has risen, is spreading the good news (the gospel). Which is preaching.

When Mary went to the deciples, they were gathered in a room (congregation gathering because they all believed). So this would be considered a church like gathering. So who shows up preaching the good news? Mary does.

And out of all things. Who also shows up to reconfirm the good news that she just told them? Christ did.

1) So we have Christ telling a woman to spread the good news.
2) She preaches it to a gathering of believers.
3) Christ Himself shows up to confirm what she just said.

That is more confirmation of a woman being able to preach from the Son of God than all the verses you could ever find against it.

Questions:

1) Can Christ enact a sin by telling someone to go do a sin? If not, then why did He tell Mary to go preach the good news?
2) Can Mary go preach the good news to the first church congregation of believers, unless God told her to?
3) Would Christ go and reaffirm that a sin is okay, by showing up to reaffirm what was preached?

If it is wrong, it is wrong. And Christ would not have been involved at all. But he told her to, then reconfirmed what she said.

You may not have realized that all of this actually happened and would have such a meaning as pointed out. But your thread here disagrees with what Christ did. Who would you say has made a mistake?

With all due respect: Now you say that you are right on this issue. And started this thread to prove this. If you are, I want to know this so I can change what I believe. But skipping my post only showed me that you cannot address these isssues. And you cannot go against the actions of what Christ said and did. So unless you can do this, you are not going to change my mind on this issue.

God does not bless what he does not approve of (women in ministry). And Christ does not do things and leave them as wrong examples for us (using sin to teach us). So I need to know. I don't need to be right, I want truth.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

God only gave man such authority over his wife. Adam and Eve were consider the first husband and wife, and that is why they are used as the example from the very beginning.

Also, prophetess word would not exist in the word unless the position was there for a woman to obtain. And because all prophets are appointed. It would also mean that any prophetess were appointed to. And who do you think appointed them to their positions (gave them the title)? A man did.

OldChurchGuy
Aug 24th 2008, 02:34 AM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

Since we do not have the original manuscript and it is my understanding that the earliest complete copy is from the 2nd century, it seems we will probably never know with certainty what Paul wrote or didn't write.

Regardless, your points are presented well and I admire the fact the opening paragraph emphasizes this is your belief. Too often I have observed people on this and other websites present a belief as an irrefutable fact.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Invincibleep
Aug 24th 2008, 03:13 AM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.
================================


Hello all, am new here and as a woman believer would definitely like to weigh in on this one. First let me say, I am making my comments before reading any of the replies. I just want to lay out my comments against the sexism espoused by males who adhere to the 'it's all clear and laid out in black and white' espousing.

To show you how 'unclear' and 'misintrepreted' the old 'black/white' laid right out there theory is, let's look at Scripture that this sort refuses to quote, 'In the last days, I will pour out my spirit on your sons and DAUGHTERS and the women will prophesy.' (Joel 2:28-29) Prophesy means 'to reveal.' The books of Acts would make mention of the '4 daughters' who did just that, 'prophesy'. Why isn't that truth laid out in black and white quoted by these who would of a certainty 'limit the women's role to such subserviency but that it is they, and not the 'liberals' who have twisted God's word?

What of Pheobe the preacher, mistranslated and laid out in black and white as 'servant'? Romans 16:1 The so-called bad liberals didn't diminish her to 'servant' rather. they were used by God to show that this woman whom Paul commended was in fact, a preacher. The Bible says, 'the letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life' to the true in-depth meaning.

On the day of Pentacost 120 were filled with the Spirit and the history let's us know that probably the bulk of the 120 were women. (Acts 2). The Spirit filled them all and 'all' prophesied about God. There this truth is laid out in black and white yet, it is never quoted by these who have perverted God's word to teach sexist subjugation as the will of God. Is the Holy Spirit wrong for having come upon these 'women' and caused them to utter right alongside men the praises of God? According to those who misinterpret the letter of the word, just downright cast down these truths and only lift up the phrases they want to, the Holy Spirit is wrong.

What of Jesus? He and the angels of the Most High were they who ordained women, (the men were all cowardly hidden away) to go and preach the first Ressurection message. Is Jesus wrong and all these fundamentalists right?

What of the Scripture that teaches all believers to be 'wise, knowledgeable' defending the word of God? That Scripture contradicts the fundamentalists misinterpretation of Paul's words.

I could go on and on and on but I will close by saying what of the Scripture that says, 'in Christ there is niether male nor female.....?' How do they explain that 'laid out in black and white' Scripture against their 'women be subjugated' satanic blabberings? They don't. You see, the fact is, the religious hypocrite is usually a woman-hater deceived by Satan to the max. It is the fundamentalists, the so-called Christian right who has always promoted sexism, racism, discrimination as the will of God when in reality, they are deceived, satanic vessels of hate. Always have been and always will be. They do always resist the Holy Spirit.

Invincibleep
Aug 24th 2008, 04:12 AM
Verse 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Notwithstanding = but

She shall be saved (Gr) sozo = made whole, made complete,

in = through

childbearing On the surface it looks like childbearing is a curse, but actually she {the wife} shall be made complete, whole, through childbearing.
{Guys will not understand that, but women will}

If they - The husband and wife.

Continue in (Gr) en - governs only the dative case and denotes being or remaining within, with the primary idea of rest and continuance.

Faith= (Gr) pistis - noun = the divinely implanted principle. It is one of the fruits of the spirit. This particular form is not the action of believing, but the firm persuasion or conviction of what we hear from God’s Word.

And charity = (Gr) agapę We all know this as being the love of God, but this love goes so much further than that which was known in the OT. It’s a spontaneous love irrespective of rights. It’s love in its fullest, conceivable form, and beyond.

And holiness - as becoming to the husband and wife as devoted to God.

with sobriety.( Gr) sôphrosunę is self-restraint, habitual inner self-governing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both the roll of the Man and the Woman should be kept in the perspective of the Word. {marriage relationship, and leadership relationship}
As for Women teaching in the Church, I find nothing in the Word that specifically disallows that; again, kept within the perspective and boundaries of written Word.

_________________________I Corinthians__________________________


I Corinthians 14: 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Again this is dealing with wives in the eastern culture, and the setting that took place. The setting is where men would sit on one side and women on the other of the room after the teaching. The men would discuss/debate what was taught. Remember that word didaske to debate
Interruptions were obviously taking place during that time from the wives, to necessitate God having this written {now remember this is not a large church structure; keep in mind the times. The churches were the group settings (i.e.) home fellowships as dictated in the book of Acts} All that God was saying was hold your opinion/discussion until you get home.
Also …the books of Corinthians is a correctional Epistle to show believers where they were off track, from not following the doctrine laid out in Romans, Ephesians, and Thessalonians.
Neither of these accounts In Timothy and Corinthians applies to all women, but as you can see it did apply to these specific settings and does apply to similar settings for obvious reasons.
Can woman teach the Word …absolutely! Can married woman teach the Word….. absolutely …within the confines of the written Word; which is “proper arrangement” between a husband and wife.

For example: {1st century home fellowship setting} the husband says. “hey babe ( they used that word a lot) you really seem to have a grasp on this holy spirit stuff , would you mind teaching tonight” and she replies: oh sure darling, oh love of my life, I am honored that you would ask; you truly are the head of the household, what a man, what a leader ….would you like a back rub tonight after I press and lay out your robe for tomorrow. ……………a little embellished ……….maybe

Lets take another example:{21st century:} A single woman is coordinating a home fellowship; she meets her knight in shining armor (that’s the whole armor of God) they decide to take the plunge, tie the knot, get hitched . The proper arrangement at that point would be that the man would become head of that home fellowship, assuming he was spiritually capable; they would become a team. {Personal note: if the guy is not spiritually capable, don’t expect to change him, or for him to change; in other words think twice before you get married}
In essence, the written Word does not squelch the ability for woman to preach or teach. I know, and have known some absolutely wonderful committed women of God with gift ministries. When these women were married, their priorities changed; which is biblically accurate. The word used in Ephesians is called submission, which is: loving obedience, by proper arrangement, and deliberate decision. This simply means when the woman decides by her free will to marry, the proper arrangement is that the husband becomes head of the household; {not a dictator} it means he lovingly guides and directs.

The only time usurping authority comes into play is when the Word deals with wives of the men of God in specific situations.
Should a woman elect not to get married, there is no restrictions on her priorities for serving the Lord, teaching and preaching Word. The only restrictions that exist would be in the mind of those who disagree with the written Word; the ones who think women should not preach……But who really looses in that case…… are those who will not accept the truth. I think it is abundantly clear when we look at scripture that God has no problem with women preaching/teaching the Word.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God bless
azheis

===============================

God bless you azheis; Thanks for sharing just laying it all out for all with 'eyes to see and ears to hear' to hear the TRUTH with regard to what the Spirit was actually saying.'

People forget that the Greek and Roman converts came out of cultures that were perverse in acting itself out. It was common for Greeks and Romans to openly have male lovers. The women of these regions were despised and also practiced homosexuality. It would be necessary for Paul to teach them of the 'wholesome' overall stance with regard to the general idea of marriage.

By the way, I love how you broke down the whole 'wives versus women' misinterpretation that males purposefuly distorted.

Bottom line, a whole new people not reared in the Hebrew faith and customs were being taught a general outline on male and female roles.

Afterall, Jesus' ressurrection not only restored us back to God but also restored the original command that states, 'God blessed THEM not just him but 'THEM' and gave THEM dominion. not over each other, but over the EARTH and all that was therein. (Gen. 1:26-28).

Now, I've heard the whole 'Adam's first wife/Lilith) theory but since the blessing is repeated in Genesis 5:2 I believe it is applicable to 'God and Women' and God's true will for women i.e. 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel, heal the sick, etc.'

Afterall, we know it is God's will as Paul himself referred to Priscilla and her husband Aquilla as 'Co-apostles.' Then there was Junias, and a host of others mentioned. Historical records outside the Bible mention a lot about Mary Magdalene and all the good work she did in getting the gospel out.

Males and sadly, brainwashed females are quick to point out the 'submit/respect' thing when it comes to women. However, Scripture tells males to 'submit' to one another with godly love. With racism every rampant we know that that 'verse of submission' to their fellow brothers regardless of 'race' was never practiced by this same sort who choose to brow-beat women with their misinterpretations.

Again, thanks for this informative and correct interpretation.

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 04:48 AM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Because I am a woman in a teaching and preaching ministry, I was immediately attracted to this subject.

I am curious why you would think that a woman cannot hold spiritual authority over a man but believe it's alright for women to lead worship. Because of the nature of worship, and because you called it "lead" worship, how can a woman NOT be in spiritual authority over a man if she is leading him in worship? Isn't worshipping God the most important thing we can do as children of God and isn't it the reason we were created by Him to begin with? How can a woman lead a man into something that is the most important and intimate experience between God and mankind but can't teach or preach or have spiritual authority over a man?

Frankly, and no offense intended, that seems like pretty messed up thinking to me.



Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

You are committing numerous generalizations here: "itching ears" (this seems to be a standard theme for you in other threads), if one doesn't believe that women shouldn't be in preaching/teaching ministry they are not striving to follow the Word of God, and if one doesn't believe what you do they are liberals. Where's the love of Christ here?

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 24th 2008, 04:51 AM
What do you mean by - that is "who I is"?

I'm a girl - a lady - and many men have told me that God would use me one day - I'm called, chosen to serve God

women too have told me so

:Originally Posted by vinsight4u8 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1756083#post1756083)
I can't name a man at the moment that knows the bible better than I do. I don't need taught, for I have done the study part mostly already.

The job now - is to go forth and warn the church Jesus will come during the 7th trumpet. I hope to meet up with some others someday that have the depth of knowledge like I do.


such arrogance!!!!

ikester7579
Aug 24th 2008, 04:53 AM
I Corinthians 14: 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

So let's break down this verse fo a better meaning. I bolded the words I'm going to speak about.

1) Women: Now why use the plural meaning? It is because this is not speaking of a "woman" behind the pulpit. This is speaking of women in the congregation.
2) Churches: Here again the plural word is being used because it's a reference to the "women" in the congregation.
3) Speak: Speaking is not preaching. The reason women are not supposed to speak in church is because they have a tendency to gossip. And any gossip put into the ears of a major gossiper can destroy a church. I know, I left a church like this.
4) under obedience: Who is a woman under obedience to? Her husband only.
5) Ask your husbands: First you have women (plural), now you have husbands (plural). What in a church has several of both so that the plural meaning has to be used? The congregation.
6) shame for women to speak in the church: Here again there is no reference to preaching. And the word "speak" is used.

There can be only one leader in church, and that is the pastor. So the word "women" is not refering to one pastor. And the word "husbands" is not refering to one person's other half in marriage. And speaking is not preaching.

And if you don't think speaking and preaching have different meaning in the word. Here's the word showing that it does:

mt 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

And is teaching and preaching different? Let here it from the word:

mt 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

mt 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

acts 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

And the verse that says it all about women preaching...

phil 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Now, how would a woman labour in the gospel with a man if she is not allowed to preach?

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 04:57 AM
such arrogance!!!!

Likely just young and zealous. Be gentle.:pray:

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 24th 2008, 04:58 AM
Because I am a woman in a teaching and preaching ministry, I was immediately attracted to this subject.

I am curious why you would think that a woman cannot hold spiritual authority over a man but believe it's alright for women to lead worship. Because of the nature of worship, and because you called it "lead" worship, how can a woman NOT be in spiritual authority over a man if she is leading him in worship?

Leading in worship is a lot different than pastoral authority.

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 05:08 AM
So let's break down this verse fo a better meaning. I bolded the words I'm going to speak about.

1) Women: Now why use the plural meaning? It is because this is not speaking of a "woman" behind the pulpit. This is speaking of women in the congregation.

Of course it is. "Woman" is singular, "women" is plural.



2) Churches: Here again the plural word is being used because it's a reference to the "women" in the congregation.

Not following what you're trying to say here.



3) Speak: Speaking is not preaching. The reason women are not supposed to speak in church is because they have a tendency to gossip. And any gossip put into the ears of a major gossiper can destroy a church. I know, I left a church like this.

Honey, if you think that men don't gossip, you must be either oblivious or very young. Believe me, men gossip just as much, sometimes even moreso, than women do. Beyond that, could you please Scripturally back up your assertion that the reason why women are not supposed to speak in church is because they gossip?



4) under obedience: Who is a woman under obedience to? Her husband only.

Hmmm...not Jesus Christ first and foremost?



5) Ask your husbands: First you have women (plural), now you have husbands (plural). What in a church has several of both so that the plural meaning has to be used? The congregation.

Still not following your point here.



6) shame for women to speak in the church: Here again there is no reference to preaching. And the word "speak" is used.

Preaching usually involves speaking. Still not following your point here.



There can be only one leader in church, and that is the pastor. Are you sure about that? Are you suggesting the concept of "pastoral authority" here?



So the word "women" is not refering to one pastor. And the word "husbands" is not refering to one person's other half in marriage. And speaking is not preaching.

And if you don't think speaking and preaching have different meaning in the word. Here's the word showing that it does:

mt 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

And is teaching and preaching different? Let here it from the word:

mt 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

mt 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

acts 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

And the verse that says it all about women preaching...

phil 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Now, how would a woman labour in the gospel with a man if she is not allowed to preach?

Why don't you tell us? :help:

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 05:12 AM
Leading in worship is a lot different than pastoral authority.

How so? We were put here first and formost to worship God. If worshipping God was the primary reason for our being, isn't worshipping God then the most important thing that we can do for God? If it's not okay for women to lead men and women and children alike as a congregational shepherd, how is it okay for women to lead men and women and children alike into worshipping God - the single most important act between mankind and the Creator of the Universe?

It makes no sense.

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 24th 2008, 05:29 AM
How so?

Because leading worship does not involve teaching:

1 Tim. 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression


.

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 05:36 AM
Because leading worship does not involve teaching:

1 Tim. 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression

Well, there are two parts of that isn't there? Teaching and authority. You don't think that leading men in worship is having authority over them?

ikester7579
Aug 24th 2008, 05:40 AM
Of course it is. "Woman" is singular, "women" is plural.

Not following what you're trying to say here.

Honey, if you think that men don't gossip, you must be either oblivious or very young. Believe me, men gossip just as much, sometimes even moreso, than women do. Beyond that, could you please Scripturally back up your assertion that the reason why women are not supposed to speak in church is because they gossip?

They sure do, but you have to admit that women have more tendency to do this then men do.


Hmmm...not Jesus Christ first and foremost?

Always. But on earth it is their husbands. Not every other man who shows up.



Still not following your point here.

Trying to show that the verse is about the congregation. It never even refers to preaching or the gospel. That is inserted by people who would rather a woman to remain silent on almost anything. I don't believe that.


Preaching usually involves speaking. Still not following your point here.

So everytime I speak am I preaching? Inserting what may not belong to "make" it fit what is believed is not going to work unless you can reconfirm it in the word.


Are you sure about that? Are you suggesting the concept of "pastoral authority" here?

For a woman, yes. Since you said you did not read the whole thread, I bring up a point I made ealier.

Question: Do you know who the first preacher of the gospel was? It was a woman. Mary was told by Christ Himself to go and tell the good news (gospel) to the apostles that He had risen. Jesus could have told a man to do this just as easy if women are not supposed to preach. Also Mary told a gathering of believers (first church) about Christ rising from the dead. And Christ backed her up by showing up to reconfirm what she said.


Why don't you tell us? :help:

She could not do it. If women were slave like in those days as some would imply. They could not even spread the gospel. But they did.

ikester7579
Aug 24th 2008, 05:45 AM
Well, there are two parts of that isn't there? Teaching and authority. You don't think that leading men in worship is having authority over them?

I don't, and you know why? If a person, man or a woman, is truly lead by God. Who is it that has the real authority in ministry? God does. God never said He would never work through a woman to reach someone for salvation.

Deborah was a woman who held a government position of authority. Yet when she joined forces with a man to defeat a common enemy, that fight was won. God is not going to bless such a merger (covenant) if He disaproves of one person in that merger. It would be setting a bad example for all who read that story.

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 05:56 AM
They sure do, but you have to admit that women have more tendenct to do this them men do.

No, I definitely don't believe that at all. I think that gossip is an equal opportunity sin. If it weren't, it would have been specifically addressed more toward women than to men. Honestly, I think you are over generalizing on this one.



Always. But on earth it is their husbands. Now every other man who shows up.

If they have a husband, I suppose you could see it that way. Not everyone is made to marry, however.



Trying to show that the verse is about the congregation. It never even refers to preaching or the gospel. That is inserted by people who would rather a woman to remain silent on almost anything. I don't believe that.
Okay. That wasn't completely clear to me by just reading this post.



So everytime I speak am I preaching? Inserting what may not belong to "make" it fit what is believed is not going to work unless you can reconfirm it in the word.

Well, actually, yes. Everytime you speak, everytime you do anything. There's a term for that called "Lifestyle Evangelism". Everytime we do or say anything, we should be reflecting Christ in us. Preaching is more than just standing behind a pulpit and delivering a message - it's everything we do and say and live.



For a woman, yes. Since you said you did not read the whole thread, I bring up a point I made ealier.

Question: Do you know who the first preacher of the gospel was? It was a woman. Mary was told by Christ Himself to go and tell the good news (gospel) to the apostles that He had risen. Jesus could have told a man to do this just as easy if women are not supposed to preach. Also Mary told a gathering of believers (first church) about Christ rising from the dead. And Christ backed her up by showing up to reconfirm what she said.

She could not do it. If women were slave like in those days as some would imply. They could not even spread the gospel. But they did.

Yes, you are correct. Also remember that it was the women in Jesus' life that the angels spoke to at Jesus' tomb and first discovered that He had risen from the dead. As well, it was Mary that first knew of the coming Messiah, not Joseph and it was Elizabeth that the coming of the Messiah was confirmed to, not John the Baptist's father.

Women are very intregal to proclaiming and preaching and teaching the truth of the Word of God - always have been, always will be. If it weren't so, God would have done things very differently over the last 200 years.

Emanate
Aug 24th 2008, 06:44 AM
Well, there are two parts of that isn't there? Teaching and authority. You don't think that leading men in worship is having authority over them?


Uh, no? Telling someone which song is next is not authority "over" someone, even if you picked the song.

Why is it you desire to authority to be "over" men?

Br. Barnabas
Aug 24th 2008, 02:24 PM
See this is where history and Biblical Study comes in pretty handy.

Lets look at the passage as a whole. In 1 Cor 14 Paul is talking about the gifts of tongues and prophecy. Now where you start quoting Paul has been talking about orderly worship and how the service should have order and not just be everyone doing whatever they want. So he tells both men and women to be quite in church, in that if they want to speak in tongues and there is no one to interpret they must keep quite. He goes on to say as a side note that women should also not ask questions in the service because they may not have, because of cultural settings, been as educated as some of the men. Not saying that some women were not as educated as men, but it would have been uncommon. Now the problem was that women were asking their husbands, in the middle of the service, what was going on and what was being talked about. Paul says that they are disrupting the service. Thus they needed to remain silent so that order could be kept.

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 04:23 PM
Uh, no? Telling someone which song is next is not authority "over" someone, even if you picked the song.

Singing songs is worshipping God? I'm curious, what kind/denomination of church do you go to? :hmm:



Why is it you desire to authority to be "over" men?

I don't have a desire to be in authority over anyone - no Christian leader truly called by God does. Why do you assume that I have a desire to be in authority over anyone, let alone men? :dunno:

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 04:47 PM
I don't, and you know why? If a person, man or a woman, is truly lead by God. Who is it that has the real authority in ministry? God does. God never said He would never work through a woman to reach someone for salvation.

Where did God say specifically "He would never work through a woman to reach someone for salvation"? Do you have a Scripture reference for this claim?

Look at Acts 18:26. Paul often mentions Priscilla and her husband Aquila with great respect. Both Priscilla and Aquila pastored a church in Ephesus. In fact, they were both responsible for teaching the gospel to Apollos. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. Priscilla was a prominent woman involved in both teaching and pastoring.

Some more examples of women in the Bible teaching and preaching and pastoring: Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3), Junia (Romans 16:7). There are, of course, many other women mentioned throughout the Bible in positions of leadership - Old and New Testaments. There are references to prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc. Paul certainly did expect women to speak in the church - if he didn't, why did he say the following: 1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." Think about it -if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did exactly that? :idea:




Deborah was a woman who held a government position of authority. Yet when she joined forces with a man to defeat a common enemy, that fight was won. God is not going to bless such a merger (covenant) if He disaproves of one person in that merger. It would be setting a bad example for all who read that story.

Well, what I see you doing here is using an Old Testament story and turning it into an analogy that it was never meant to be. IOW, you're reading much more into the story than was ever meant to be seen.

The truth of the story of Devorah is that she summoned Barak, a mighty warrior, and instructed him to wage battle against the oppressors of her people. How could she do that? Because she had authority over him. Do you realize that Barak insisted he would not go unless Devorah go with him? :hmm:

Randyc46
Aug 24th 2008, 05:05 PM
The bottom line is something I learned from my dad, a Godly pastor (male:lol: couldn't resist) who said, "Son if someone doesn't want to change what they think, nothing you can say will change it."
There are SEVEN pages of opinion, Scripture, teaching or preaching-(unless it's a female poster-;)again couldn't resist) correction, instruction, experience, etc....and I would venture to say that not one person who believes in or are female pastors/teachers are going to quit doing it and those who are so sure of what Scripture says about it are going to attend an ordination service of a female.
And I've sat and read through ALL seven pages like I didn't know how the story would play out! Got too much time on my hands.

I'm going back to Revelation so God can show me if He is coming back before, during or after the Tribulation period....you know...something I can REALLY figure out!!!
God bless you all!

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 05:11 PM
The bottom line is something I learned from my dad, a Godly pastor (male:lol: couldn't resist) who said, "Son if someone doesn't want to change what they think, nothing you can say will change it."
There are SEVEN pages of opinion, Scripture, teaching or preaching-(unless it's a female poster-;)again couldn't resist) correction, instruction, experience, etc....and I would venture to say that not one person who believes in or are female pastors/teachers are going to quit doing it and those who are so sure of what Scripture says about it are going to attend an ordination service of a female.
And I've sat and read through ALL seven pages like I didn't know how the story would play out! Got too much time on my hands.

I'm going back to Revelation so God can show me if He is coming back before, during or after the Tribulation period....you know...something I can REALLY figure out!!!
God bless you all!

Well...I'm not necessarily here for the express purpose of changing anyone's mind or beliefs, just to discuss and present other points of view. If someone's mind and beliefs change for the better because of what I have posted, great. If that doesn't happen, okey dokey. ;)

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 24th 2008, 05:30 PM
Well, there are two parts of that isn't there? Teaching and authority. You don't think that leading men in worship is having authority over them?

No, not really.
Leading worship is different from holding the office of pastor. As you know, being a pastor involves a lot more than just preaching from the pulpit.....it is being a shepherd, guiding and counseling those in the flock, and providing Godly wisdom to those who need it.
I do not believe that women should have the authority to counsel men...I do believe that only men should counsel men, which would make it very difficult if the pastor is a woman.

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 05:39 PM
No, not really.
Leading worship is different from holding the office of pastor.

I guess it depends on what you view as worship in church. If you see it as just singing songs...then obviously that's not a very intregal position. So now I have to ask: when did worship of God become downgraded to singing songs and why? And if worship in church is just singing songs, when do you really worship God in the truest sense of the word?



As you know, being a pastor involves a lot more than just preaching from the pulpit.....it is being a shepherd, guiding and counseling those in the flock, and providing Godly wisdom to those who need it.
I do not believe that women should have the authority to counsel men...I do believe that only men should counsel men, which would make it very difficult if the pastor is a woman.

Why do you feel women shouldn't counsel men? What about women doctors? What about women psychologists and psychiatrists? In the same vein, do you feel that men should be allowed to counsel women?

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 24th 2008, 06:29 PM
I guess it depends on what you view as worship in church. If you see it as just singing songs...then obviously that's not a very intregal position. So now I have to ask: when did worship of God become downgraded to singing songs and why? And if worship in church is just singing songs, when do you really worship God in the truest sense of the word?

In church, it entails singing songs and praying, but honestly, I feel that worship should be something that is practiced continually, and be an intregal part of every aspect of one's life. It should be practiced daily...not just in church. Worship takes many different forms...obedience, prayer, witnessing, Bible reading...alll of those are forms of worship.
Worship is basically just giving honor to the Lord, and we should do so in every aspect of life.
Also, there is a difference between praise and worship.




Why do you feel women shouldn't counsel men? What about women doctors? What about women psychologists and psychiatrists? In the same vein, do you feel that men should be allowed to counsel women?

I'm speaking about counseling in the spiritual sense.

I guess it's because God appointed the man to be the spiritual head of the woman. He created a heirarchy by which we are to function, and for women to hold positions of authority over men would be a contradiction of that heirarchy.

When Paul says that he does not permit a woman to have authority over a man, he tells us why in verse 13:

1 Tim. 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression

I do believe that women are more prone to fall into spiritual deception than men....because women are more emotional than men. Christianity isn't about emotion, but because women are more emotional, oftentimes such an experience will take a back seat to wisdom.

I do believe that it is the responsibility of the man to have authority over the woman. God gave men this position of authority, so they should be expected to step up to the plate and take charge:

Luke 12:48 ......For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more

God gave men the role of authority over the woman; likewise, God expects men to fulfill that role, but the problem is, so many men are willing to be ruled over by women because they are weak, and do not want to offend the women. It was like this even from the beginning, when Adam gave into temptation....He didn't give in because he was deceived, but because his wife asked him to.

The bottom line is, God appointed men to be the head over women:

1 Cor. 11:8-10 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels

Christ is to have authority over the church (the bride of Christ), just as the husband is to have authority over his wife. This is the way that God arranged things, so I would think it would be logical to conclude that the central authority figure in the church should be a man.

OrdainedLady
Aug 24th 2008, 11:21 PM
In church, it entails singing songs and praying, but honestly, I feel that worship should be something that is practiced continually, and be an intregal part of every aspect of one's life. It should be practiced daily...not just in church. Worship takes many different forms...obedience, prayer, witnessing, Bible reading...alll of those are forms of worship.
Worship is basically just giving honor to the Lord, and we should do so in every aspect of life.

Just to clarify: are you saying that in your church it entails singing songs and praying? Many churches call the time period of singing songs and praying "worship" - which is kind of where I was going with all of this (regarding worship).

But you are correct - worship takes on many different aspects and should be practiced daily. IMO, probably moreso and more definitively one day of the week set aside for such. But you are not correct by saying that "worship is basically just giving honor to the Lord" - only because worshipping the Creator and Lord of the universe should never be considered "basically" anything. Worship of God is complex, it's involved, it's focus is giving glory to God and honor to God and taking the focus completely off of ourselves. Too many mistakently believe that worshipping God is saying "thank you for all you've done for me" - when in reality the thanks we give Him during worship should not focus on what God has done for us, but what we can and should do for Him. For example - instead of saying "thanks for Your blessings, Lord" what should be said instead is "thanks for being Who You are, Lord". The focus being on God and glorifying Him, not glorifying what He does for us.



Also, there is a difference between praise and worship.

Absolutely. And that is definitely another subject altogether! :)



I'm speaking about counseling in the spiritual sense.

I guess it's because God appointed the man to be the spiritual head of the woman. He created a heirarchy by which we are to function, and for women to hold positions of authority over men would be a contradiction of that heirarchy.

I guess it all depends on how you interpret Scriptures pertaining to this subject.



When Paul says that he does not permit a woman to have authority over a man, he tells us why in verse 13:

1 Tim. 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression

I do believe that women are more prone to fall into spiritual deception than men....because women are more emotional than men.

If that's the case, why did the angels at Jesus' empty tomb appear to announce the resurrection to women? (There are plenty of other examples, but I think you get the point)



Christianity isn't about emotion

Says who? Is that a Scriptural concept? Does the Bible say that following Christ isn't and cannot ever be an emotional experience?



but because women are more emotional, oftentimes such an experience will take a back seat to wisdom.

I'm sorry, but that's an old and tired concept that's been used in all kinds of ways to keep women out of seats and positions of power (i.e., politics, business, etc.) That concept has no basis in truth. Some women are more emotional than others just as some men are more emotional than others. It all has to do with what the individual is suited to, not that their sex determines what they are suited to emotionally or non-emotionally.



I do believe that it is the responsibility of the man to have authority over the woman. God gave men this position of authority, so they should be expected to step up to the plate and take charge:

Luke 12:48 ......For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more

Well..that's a good Scripture, but I fail to see how it proves conclusively that "God gave men this position of authority". Can you elaborate how that Scripture speaks to what you are claiming it does?



God gave men the role of authority over the woman; likewise, God expects men to fulfill that role, but the problem is, so many men are willing to be ruled over by women because they are weak, and do not want to offend the women. It was like this even from the beginning, when Adam gave into temptation....He didn't give in because he was deceived, but because his wife asked him to.

So it was Eve's fault that Adam was weak and gave into temptation (your words)? Adam didn't have free will to exercise? Adam didn't have a brain of his own to reason with? I thought it was the woman who was brought forth from the man - not the other way around. What's more, your rationale that women are more emotional kind of fails here, too. If Adam was the unemotional one, why would he acquiesce to Eve's suggestion out of (what you imply was) fear?

But beyond all of that...don't you think that what transpired in the Garden was really more along the lines with God's plan for mankind in the broad scheme of things? From the beginning, man (Adam and Eve) exercised their free will given to them by God the Father.



The bottom line is, God appointed men to be the head over women:

Well...you keep saying that, but you have yet to prove it from the Word of God. The Scripture you include next doesn't prove your point, either...



1 Cor. 11:8-10 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels

Christ is to have authority over the church (the bride of Christ), just as the husband is to have authority over his wife. This is the way that God arranged things, so I would think it would be logical to conclude that the central authority figure in the church should be a man.

Okay, I'm going to take a guess and say that it's very possible you have been told that the above Scripture means that a woman is to submit to her husband 100% at all times and to be silent in church. But, I would like for you to re-read that verse and ask yourself if what you just read, actually says what you are claiming it says. To go even further, ask yourself if by reading just the words themselves you understand completely what the verse is saying.

I am asking you to do this because that verse is one of the hardest to understand and most hotly contested verses in the New Testament - bar none! :help:

What I have learned that verse actually means is pretty differant than you have likely been told it means. You see, while the Bible is full of all kinds of stuff, and is in reality a textbook for life, it's not so easy to understand if you take the words on the page literally. IOW, if you don't understand who wrote what, to whom it was written, and why it was written the way it was, taking the words on the page from the version you like the best is kind of a risky proposition. It is imperative for anyone who wants to really study the Bible to understand that the original Greek and the original Hebrew isn't what was translated onto the pages of the Bible we have today. What's more (and this gums up the works even further), the times in which particular books were written and to whatever culture the books were written too must also be understood. Otherwise, you get a verse like you have included above - and what in the heck does it mean? Looking at it verbatim it pretty much says: "hey, ladies - you get to have authority on your heads because the angels like it." :rofl:Does that make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me...:lol:

Anyway...considering that Paul was writing the above to the Corinthians who were experiencing great divisions in the newly established Christian Church there. People were trying to find their place within this new group and family of believers. As with all families, disagreements and divisions arose. It's thought that one of the divisions was caused from men wanting to lord their authority over the women, and this is why Paul addresses men and women and their roles in the church in chapter 11. The men felt that they were responsible for their womens' salvation, but Paul disagreed (this is also addressed by Paul when he speaks of how with God there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek). Considering who Paul was writing to and why, I believe that the following is the best interpretation from the Greek of what I Cor 11:8-10 is really saying:

The woman is being instructed to wear a head covering so that she may cease to fulfill her natural function of reflecting the glory of man (her husband), and instead be free to pray or prophesy to the glory of God alone. IOW - be independent in worship! The head covering is the sign of the authority that God now gives to a woman in order that she may speak to God in prayer and declair His word in prophecy. This head covering, her veil, represents the new authority given to the woman under the new dispensation to do things that prior to that had never been permitted for a woman to do!

Does that make more sense of the above verse to you? I know it does for me. As a matter of fact, I find it exciting and truly liberating. :thumbsup:

Sorry this has been so long - it's alot to absorb and I won't expect a quick reply from you - but I have enjoyed putting this reply to your comments together.

Have a blessed evening! :amen:

ikester7579
Aug 25th 2008, 04:32 AM
Where did God say specifically "He would never work through a woman to reach someone for salvation"? Do you have a Scripture reference for this claim?

Look at Acts 18:26. Paul often mentions Priscilla and her husband Aquila with great respect. Both Priscilla and Aquila pastored a church in Ephesus. In fact, they were both responsible for teaching the gospel to Apollos. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. Priscilla was a prominent woman involved in both teaching and pastoring.

Some more examples of women in the Bible teaching and preaching and pastoring: Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3), Junia (Romans 16:7). There are, of course, many other women mentioned throughout the Bible in positions of leadership - Old and New Testaments. There are references to prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc. Paul certainly did expect women to speak in the church - if he didn't, why did he say the following: 1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." Think about it -if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did exactly that? :idea:



You need to read my post again. I did not claim that God said this. I said that He never said this. You posted all that on a misunderstanding. Just so you don't misunderstand my posts:

1) I believe women should preach.
2) I believe that women should run a ministry in pastorial sense.
3) Only in marriage do women submit authority only because God makes that very clear.

So if you see a post where you think I'm saying something different. You miss-understand it. If you are a pastor, and God blesses your ministry, I have no problems with it. God does not bless what He does not approve of.

Like Christian rock music. I had a hard time applying it to ministry. But I have witnessed people coming to Christ through such ministries. So my opinion no longer matters because God's approval through the draw to salvation over rides it. This is where I allow God to guide, and don't form my own opinions as if God is going to conform to what "I" think should be right or wrong.



Well, what I see you doing here is using an Old Testament story and turning it into an analogy that it was never meant to be. IOW, you're reading much more into the story than was ever meant to be seen.

The truth of the story of Devorah is that she summoned Barak, a mighty warrior, and instructed him to wage battle against the oppressors of her people. How could she do that? Because she had authority over him. Do you realize that Barak insisted he would not go unless Devorah go with him? :hmm:

Here again you think I am against women doing anything. I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. You keep missing something. I'm posting for women, not against them.

OrdainedLady
Aug 25th 2008, 03:17 PM
You need to read my post again. I did not claim that God said this. I said that He never said this. You posted all that on a misunderstanding.

So if you see a post where you think I'm saying something different. You miss-understand it.

Here again you think I am against women doing anything. I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. You keep missing something. I'm posting for women, not against them.

Well now...I may have misread what you wrote (there were alot of "nevers" in there, so I think the double-negatives confused me:dunno:
Even so, you've gotta admit that what I wrote was pure genius! :lol:

Have a great day.

Cynthia
Aug 25th 2008, 06:57 PM
In Romans Paul asserts that Christains don't need to follow all these rules because of the Grace of God. We above these rules and the rules are needed for those who sin and haven't been reborn. I don't have my Bible with me right now, but tomorrow if I have time I will give you the specific verses. I've noticed a lot with Paul that he gives all these rules, but when you keep reading he says something like, yeah that's what people say, but don't worry about the rules so much, if you are right with God and live a moral life, you are under the Grace of God and you don't have to worry about all these rules! And that's pretty much what Jesus says as well. He said the religious rulers at the time had lost sight of GOd and put all these rules in the way of worshiping God, Loving your fellow man, and helping others.

OrdainedLady
Aug 25th 2008, 08:09 PM
In Romans Paul asserts that Christains don't need to follow all these rules because of the Grace of God. We above these rules and the rules are needed for those who sin and haven't been reborn. I don't have my Bible with me right now, but tomorrow if I have time I will give you the specific verses. I've noticed a lot with Paul that he gives all these rules, but when you keep reading he says something like, yeah that's what people say, but don't worry about the rules so much, if you are right with God and live a moral life, you are under the Grace of God and you don't have to worry about all these rules! And that's pretty much what Jesus says as well. He said the religious rulers at the time had lost sight of GOd and put all these rules in the way of worshiping God, Loving your fellow man, and helping others.

Well, I for one will be very interested to see what Scripture(s) you are referencing in your point above. As far as the "rules", are you talking about the Law as proscribed in the Old Testament? Anyway...looking forward to that Scripture reference, Cynthia. :confused

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 25th 2008, 08:57 PM
Just to clarify: are you saying that in your church it entails singing songs and praying? Many churches call the time period of singing songs and praying "worship" - which is kind of where I was going with all of this (regarding worship).

Yes, that's what I was saying. Also, in every church that I've been to, but that doesn't mean that's what it is limited to. We worship God be being there...we worship God in singing songs to Him, prayer, and even in learning about Him through the preaching.


For example - instead of saying "thanks for Your blessings, Lord" what should be said instead is "thanks for being Who You are, Lord". The focus being on God and glorifying Him, not glorifying what He does for us.

Actually, it should be both. Even so, it's not up to me to tell a person how he/she should glorify God....that's God's territory.



If that's the case, why did the angels at Jesus' empty tomb appear to announce the resurrection to women? (There are plenty of other examples, but I think you get the point)

Because it was women who were there at the tomb when the angel did appear. Are you saying if there had been only men present, the angel wouldn't have appeared?


Says who? Is that a Scriptural concept? Does the Bible say that following Christ isn't and cannot ever be an emotional experience?

No. I am saying that our walk with Christ should not be dictated by emotion, but by wisdom and the Word of God. I am not saying that emotion doesn't come into play, but that shouldn't be the criteria by which we judge our Christian experience.

Believe me, I'm learning that the hard way.



That concept has no basis in truth. Some women are more emotional than others just as some men are more emotional than others. It all has to do with what the individual is suited to, not that their sex determines what they are suited to emotionally or non-emotionally.

Actually, speaking as a woman, I do believe that this concept has great validity. While there are some men that are more emotional than others, and women, if you look at the gender as a whole, you will see that a greater percentage of women are more emotional than men.

Not only that, but women are more comfortable with their emotions than men.


Well..that's a good Scripture, but I fail to see how it proves conclusively that "God gave men this position of authority". Can you elaborate how that Scripture speaks to what you are claiming it does?

You're right....It doesn't prove it conclusively, and I'm thinking that was a bad Scripture to use. I guess the point I was trying to make is that God appointed the man head over the woman; and as such, has given him more responsibility. To whom much is given, much is required.



So it was Eve's fault that Adam was weak and gave into temptation (your words)?
Oh, no, not at all, and I'm sorry if it seemed like that was what I was implying. More so, I think it was Adam's fault, as he was the one who was responsible for Eve.....instead of taking charge, and telling Eve that it was wrong, instead he opted to, as God said, heed to the voice of his wife.



Adam didn't have free will to exercise? Adam didn't have a brain of his own to reason with? I thought it was the woman who was brought forth from the man - not the other way around. What's more, your rationale that women are more emotional kind of fails here, too. If Adam was the unemotional one, why would he acquiesce to Eve's suggestion out of (what you imply was) fear?

Adam loved Eve. Unfortunately, he put the voice of Eve before the voice of God, and this is where his transgression lied. Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam merely wanted to avoid contention with his wife.

Because she was deceived:

vs. 16: .........Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you

One ironic thing about this passage is the phrase your desire shall be for your husband, because the implication of the word desire is an attempt to usurp or control; in other words, You will now have a tendency to dominate your husband, but he shall rule over you.

Eve heeded the serpent's voice, and gave into deception....Adam heeded his wife's voice, and gave into willful rebellion. What Adam should have done is put his foot down right then and there. You notice one peculiar thing about the account, was that the curse did not come into effect until Adam ate. Who knows what would have happened if Adam hadn't eaten.



But beyond all of that...don't you think that what transpired in the Garden was really more along the lines with God's plan for mankind in the broad scheme of things? From the beginning, man (Adam and Eve) exercised their free will given to them by God the Father.

Yes, but that's beside the point.....God's plan or not, the point is that Adam and Eve disobeyed.....Eve was deceived, but Adam blatantly rebelled, and they were both judged accordingly. Eve would be ruled over by her husband.




Well...you keep saying that, but you have yet to prove it from the Word of God.
I believe I just did



Okay, I'm going to take a guess and say that it's very possible you have been told that the above Scripture means that a woman is to submit to her husband 100% at all times

1 John 1:27 But the annointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same annointing teaches you, concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him

What I am saying is this, not because I was taught it, but because this is what I get from Scripture: If what a husband asks of his wife does not go against the commands of God, and is within the bounds of Scripture, then yes, a woman should submit to her husband at all times. If he requests her to do something that goes against the Word of God, though, then she should follow the word of God first.

Col. 3:18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord

Eph. 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the church, and He is the Saviour of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Notice the phrase as is fitting to the Lord and in the Lord. Wives are not to engage in something anti-Scriptural just because a husband asks her to, but she is to temper it with what the word of the Lord says.




But, I would like for you to re-read that verse and ask yourself if what you just read, actually says what you are claiming it says. To go even further, ask yourself if by reading just the words themselves you understand completely what the verse is saying.

I am asking you to do this because that verse is one of the hardest to understand and most hotly contested verses in the New Testament - bar none! :help:

What I have learned that verse actually means is pretty differant than you have likely been told it means. You see, while the Bible is full of all kinds of stuff, and is in reality a textbook for life, it's not so easy to understand if you take the words on the page literally. IOW, if you don't understand who wrote what, to whom it was written, and why it was written the way it was, taking the words on the page from the version you like the best is kind of a risky proposition. It is imperative for anyone who wants to really study the Bible to understand that the original Greek and the original Hebrew isn't what was translated onto the pages of the Bible we have today. What's more (and this gums up the works even further), the times in which particular books were written and to whatever culture the books were written too must also be understood. Otherwise, you get a verse like you have included above - and what in the heck does it mean? Looking at it verbatim it pretty much says: "hey, ladies - you get to have authority on your heads because the angels like it." :rofl:Does that make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me...:lol:

Anyway...considering that Paul was writing the above to the Corinthians who were experiencing great divisions in the newly established Christian Church there. People were trying to find their place within this new group and family of believers. As with all families, disagreements and divisions arose. It's thought that one of the divisions was caused from men wanting to lord their authority over the women, and this is why Paul addresses men and women and their roles in the church in chapter 11. The men felt that they were responsible for their womens' salvation, but Paul disagreed (this is also addressed by Paul when he speaks of how with God there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek). Considering who Paul was writing to and why, I believe that the following is the best interpretation from the Greek of what I Cor 11:8-10 is really saying:

The woman is being instructed to wear a head covering so that she may cease to fulfill her natural function of reflecting the glory of man (her husband), and instead be free to pray or prophesy to the glory of God alone. IOW - be independent in worship! The head covering is the sign of the authority that God now gives to a woman in order that she may speak to God in prayer and declair His word in prophecy. This head covering, her veil, represents the new authority given to the woman under the new dispensation to do things that prior to that had never been permitted for a woman to do!

Does that make more sense of the above verse to you? I know it does for me. As a matter of fact, I find it exciting and truly liberating. :thumbsup:

Sorry this has been so long - it's alot to absorb and I won't expect a quick reply from you - but I have enjoyed putting this reply to your comments together.

Have a blessed evening! :amen:

1 Cor. 11:8-10 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this reason, a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels

Here's how I am interpreting this Scripture:

For man is not from woman, but woman from man - Woman was created from the rib, or side of man

Nor was man created for the woman, but the woman for the man - Woman was created to be a helper for man. I find this part of Scripture so beautiful, because the analogy of being created from the side of man coincides so beautifully with the imagery of the woman being alongside her husband to help him.

For this reason - BECAUSE OF THIS

the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head - This could be taken one of 2 ways....the symbol of a woman's authority to prophesy in the new church age, or a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. Notice vs. 3:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

This right here is the heirarchy. Basically, what Paul is saying is that a woman needs to have her head covered because her hair is her glory:

vs. 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering

It would be shameful for her to prophesy with her head uncovered, because her hair is a symbol of glory to her husband......not a symbol of authority. Therefore, it needs to be covered, so that she can prophesy with the authority that God gave her.

Even so, this does nothing to disprove that man is not head of the woman....it just proves that, when the man and woman are not in church, and her head is uncovered, she is a glory to her husband

because of the angels - The angels learn of God's work of grace through the lives and worship of God's people. Don't the Scriptures also say that we will be judging angels? Apparently, the angels are present at church services, and learn from our behaviour.

....and you're right....it is liberating. We women have a definite place in ministry and the body, and God can use us just as He can men, but even so, this does not negate the natural heirarchy by which He created the sexes.

Perpetua
Aug 26th 2008, 12:56 PM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc.. ...

Just a few observations to keep in mind, lest people get too distressed about the restriction put on women in the ministry --

Though women are specifically kept from the office of preaching / teaching to men, there is no limitation regarding everything else in their lives, and the Bible gives plenty of examples of godly women and how they served God in their own situation. Since other MacArthur books have been mentioned, here is another recommended title, a book that shows the lives of 12 godly women: "Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible, and What He Wants to Do with You."

To keep it in perspective, also remember that just because women cannot do this does not mean that ALL men can. James gives the warning about those who take on that extra responsibility, in James 3:1 -- "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." This stems from the general principle of Jesus, as in Luke 12:48 -- "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Indeed, many a pastor (man) has fallen into disgrace through temptations unique to those in public ministry; public preaching is of a much higher level of trust and responsibility, not to be taken lightly. The teacher is supposed to know, is expected to know, more than the average person, and when the teacher does not hold up the highest standard of God's word, it diminishes and serves as a slander against God. As also said in scripture -- "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24). How many unbelievers point to the fallen preachers -- the phonies as well as those who admit to grievous sin -- in their attacks against Christians and Christianity?

As is clear from the Genesis creation account as well as later references, the woman is the weaker vessel and under the protection of a husband. The woman was deceived; Adam was not deceived, but willfully sinned because he chose to listen to his wife rather than God -- and as such it is man that bears responsibility for sin. The NT texts, after all, state that "as in Adam" we all fell, referring to Christ as the second Adam; the text didn't state "as in Eve" but "as in Adam." Yet even among men, such a position of leadership is one that cannot be done by just any man but only those called by God. When even many men fail in such responsibility, women especially ought to tremble, rather than proudly assert their ability to do something; and in this as well as throughout other areas of life instructions in the Bible, such limitations are for the woman's protection and the well-being of her soul. Yet the women who insists on having this one thing that is forbidden, when they have a whole world of so many other biblical, scriptural ways to serve the Lord, are rather like our original parents in the garden of God. They had everything, in a perfect paradise, with only one restriction. Yet it wasn't enough to have all of that, all the wonderful things and the food just lying there and easily growing -- they had to have more, even that one thing more; and consider the terrible evil that came forth, the terrible sinful, evil world we've had ever since.

threebigrocks
Aug 27th 2008, 05:23 PM
Well...I'm not necessarily here for the express purpose of changing anyone's mind or beliefs, just to discuss and present other points of view. If someone's mind and beliefs change for the better because of what I have posted, great. If that doesn't happen, okey dokey. ;)

The only view changing anyone ought to see here is one from our own thoughts and opnions to that of scripture. If our minds and beliefs change, it ought to conform to that of Christ and less of ourselves and certainly not to anothers views or take on scripture.


For example - instead of saying "thanks for Your blessings, Lord" what should be said instead is "thanks for being Who You are, Lord". The focus being on God and glorifying Him, not glorifying what He does for us.

We shouldn't thank God for the blessings He's given to us? :o I thank Him quite often for what He has done, what He is doing BECAUSE of who He is. Praise Him and worship Him for who He is, because that is why He does what He does. Do we separate mans actions from who He is, or does a man's thoughts, actions or deeds reflect the very nature of His heart?

Same with God, OrdainedLady. Same thing.



I guess it all depends on how you interpret Scriptures pertaining to this subject.

The only interpretation is the one we receive as scripture reveals to us either and/or with itself or by revelation of the the Spirit. If we preach anything else it's a different gospel. Without that, it's not from God but of our own understanding which I'm sure we can agree we are in a world of hurt if we go by that.




If that's the case, why did the angels at Jesus' empty tomb appear to announce the resurrection to women? (There are plenty of other examples, but I think you get the point)






Says who? Is that a Scriptural concept? Does the Bible say that following Christ isn't and cannot ever be an emotional experience?

Faith in and of itself is not emotion, but it can surely evoke emotion in our physical selves. Christ revealed his human side and wept at the death of Lazarus. Do we rely on emotion which can change with the wind or in a steadfast and never changing God? Emotion is a reaction of what is in the heart. Faith through repentance because of grace is not.




I'm sorry, but that's an old and tired concept that's been used in all kinds of ways to keep women out of seats and positions of power (i.e., politics, business, etc.) That concept has no basis in truth. Some women are more emotional than others just as some men are more emotional than others. It all has to do with what the individual is suited to, not that their sex determines what they are suited to emotionally or non-emotionally.


Hate to say it, but I'm gonna anyhow. Women are naturally more predisposed to emotion than men. Thank God for that, because it is when I get all goofy with it that I can rely on my husband to be my rock, even when he too is emotional. There is a great difference between men and women emotionally. We are programmed that way with purpose by God.





So it was Eve's fault that Adam was weak and gave into temptation (your words)? Adam didn't have free will to exercise? Adam didn't have a brain of his own to reason with? I thought it was the woman who was brought forth from the man - not the other way around. What's more, your rationale that women are more emotional kind of fails here, too. If Adam was the unemotional one, why would he acquiesce to Eve's suggestion out of (what you imply was) fear?

He did, but Adam was more concerned (and thus did check his spiritual responsibility) in pleasing his wife. Paul spoke on that too, which is why he also mentions that it is better NOT to marry and remain as him - free to serve God and not have our interests divided.


But beyond all of that...don't you think that what transpired in the Garden was really more along the lines with God's plan for mankind in the broad scheme of things? From the beginning, man (Adam and Eve) exercised their free will given to them by God the Father.

Correct. It sure was in God's plan, but that is and cannot be the lone understanding we hold in the creation and propriety of things in scripture. The entire gospel can be seen there, Genesis is so rich that we could spend an insane amount of time and never get to chapter 3. Read it for what it says and for what it teaches us, wholly.




Okay, I'm going to take a guess and say that it's very possible you have been told that the above Scripture means that a woman is to submit to her husband 100% at all times and to be silent in church. But, I would like for you to re-read that verse and ask yourself if what you just read, actually says what you are claiming it says. To go even further, ask yourself if by reading just the words themselves you understand completely what the verse is saying.

True. Scripture tells us that man has authority over his wife. A wife is to submit. Have you ever looked at the role of a man under God? That gives great perspective as to the beauty of a submissive wife.



Looking at it verbatim it pretty much says: "hey, ladies - you get to have authority on your heads because the angels like it." :rofl:Does that make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me...:lol:


And who are the angels submissive to?


The men felt that they were responsible for their womens' salvation, but Paul disagreed (this is also addressed by Paul when he speaks of how with God there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek).

Ephesians 5

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

So then how do you reconcile that with the above from Ephesians, directly addressed to husbands? Impossible. We have freedom within the confines of faith. Be careful to not step outside of scripture and claim freedom.


The woman is being instructed to wear a head covering so that she may cease to fulfill her natural function of reflecting the glory of man (her husband), and instead be free to pray or prophesy to the glory of God alone. IOW - be independent in worship! The head covering is the sign of the authority that God now gives to a woman in order that she may speak to God in prayer and declair His word in prophecy. This head covering, her veil, represents the new authority given to the woman under the new dispensation to do things that prior to that had never been permitted for a woman to do!

Within the confines of the authoritative structure of scripture, yes. That headcovering remains, it isn't taken away.


Does that make more sense of the above verse to you? I know it does for me. As a matter of fact, I find it exciting and truly liberating. :thumbsup:



We have liberty in our faith, within which is an established hierarchy. If that hierarchy isn't kept, we remove ourselves from freedom. Within that order of things is incredible freedom!

The Parson
Aug 27th 2008, 07:19 PM
I tend to avoid such threads except to keep an eye on everyone behaving themselves. BUT, it seems to me that one side is ignoring something. The underlying reason the Apostle placed such a prohibition on the woman taking the role of leadership over the man.

OrdainedLady
Aug 27th 2008, 07:41 PM
I tend to avoid such threads except to keep an eye on everyone behaving themselves. BUT, it seems to me that one side is ignoring something. The underlying reason the Apostle placed such a prohibition on the woman taking the role of leadership over the man.

Which is...? :help:

Br. Barnabas
Aug 27th 2008, 07:55 PM
I tend to avoid such threads except to keep an eye on everyone behaving themselves. BUT, it seems to me that one side is ignoring something. The underlying reason the Apostle placed such a prohibition on the woman taking the role of leadership over the man.

Some of us don't see Paul or anyone else placing a prohibition on it since he talks about a deacon who is a woman in Romans 16 and an apostle who is a woman in the same chapter. So if he allows it in one place and forbids it in another place there has to be something going on in one of the places that has made it ok or wrong. And since Pheobe is from a town right next to Corinth and he is writing his letter to the Romans in Corinth there must have been something else going on with the women in Ephesus where Timothy was when Paul wrote 1 Timothy and with the women in Corinth since he talked about them remaining silent when he wrote, what we call, 1 Corinthians. There is a disconnect somewhere since we see women having a role in the early church which would go against what Paul said. Or maybe, just maybe, Paul was addressing a cultural problem and not making a general rule.

OrdainedLady
Aug 27th 2008, 07:57 PM
The only view changing anyone ought to see here is one from our own thoughts and opnions to that of scripture. If our minds and beliefs change, it ought to conform to that of Christ and less of ourselves and certainly not to anothers views or take on scripture.

I don't think I said anything that would indicate that our views ought not to conform to the mind of Christ.



We shouldn't thank God for the blessings He's given to us? :o I thank Him quite often for what He has done, what He is doing BECAUSE of who He is. Praise Him and worship Him for who He is, because that is why He does what He does. Do we separate mans actions from who He is, or does a man's thoughts, actions or deeds reflect the very nature of His heart?

I never said "we shouldn't thank God for the blessings He's given to us". I'm not sure if you're not really reading what I've written or are just trying to be contrary. :( What I said is that worship is not praise and praise is not worship - and the two are not synonymous but very different actions. And as far as "a man's thoughts, actions, or deeds" reflect[ing] the very nature of His [God's] heart"...

...as long as we are in these temopral, sinful bodies and have free will to exercise, we will not always reflect the very nature of God's heart.



The only interpretation is the one we receive as scripture reveals to us either and/or with itself or by revelation of the the Spirit. If we preach anything else it's a different gospel. Without that, it's not from God but of our own understanding which I'm sure we can agree we are in a world of hurt if we go by that.

Again, I'm not sure if you're really reading what I'm writing...

I was speaking of the various Bible translations that are available (NIV, KJV, NASB, etc., etc., etc.). You know...Hebrew to English and Greek to English?



Faith in and of itself is not emotion, but it can surely evoke emotion in our physical selves. Christ revealed his human side and wept at the death of Lazarus. Do we rely on emotion which can change with the wind or in a steadfast and never changing God? Emotion is a reaction of what is in the heart. Faith through repentance because of grace is not.

Sorry, but...baloney. Faith through repentance is definitely, very often, emotionally based. If you don't think so, maybe you should look at those weeping during an altar call because of broken spirits and contrite hearts before God.



Hate to say it, but I'm gonna anyhow. Women are naturally more predisposed to emotion than men. Thank God for that, because it is when I get all goofy with it that I can rely on my husband to be my rock, even when he too is emotional. There is a great difference between men and women emotionally. We are programmed that way with purpose by God.

So, using your example above, you're essentially saying that because God purposefully "programmed [women] that way" then all women, across the board, are more emotional and all men are by the opposite default, less emotional? That may be true for the simple majority of women (and don't forget that "simple majority" would be merely 51% of the female population), but what about the minority that doesn't fall in that category? Are they freaks of nature? Wrong? Abominations? I honestly don't think you have a meaningful argument here, because your premise is shaky to begin with.



He did, but Adam was more concerned (and thus did check his spiritual responsibility) in pleasing his wife. Paul spoke on that too, which is why he also mentions that it is better NOT to marry and remain as him - free to serve God and not have our interests divided.

I don't buy it. Adam was more "concerned [with] pleasing his wife"? How about Adam was more interested in being greedy and getting something that he had been told he couldn't have? Painting Adam (and essentially all males of the human species) as being helpless in the face of a manipulating, wiley woman is unbelievably paranoid, sexist and stereotypical. Not to mention that it just further feeds the belief that the uncontrolled, emotional will of a woman needs to be crushed under the heel of a man.

Here's an interesting aside: some schools of thought and Biblical historians believe that Paul was a widower and not a "confirmed bachelor". Puts a little different light on Paul's take on marriage, dontcha think?



Correct. It sure was in God's plan, but that is and cannot be the lone understanding we hold in the creation and propriety of things in scripture. The entire gospel can be seen there, Genesis is so rich that we could spend an insane amount of time and never get to chapter 3. Read it for what it says and for what it teaches us, wholly.

Agreed that Genesis is very complex. But, I tend to see Biblical events as continual affirmation that God has a plan and that He is in control.



True. Scripture tells us that man has authority over his wife. A wife is to submit. Have you ever looked at the role of a man under God? That gives great perspective as to the beauty of a submissive wife.

I agree that there needs to be one leader in the household - I just don't hold that it is always the man. There are many reasons why the man cannot act as the husband and the woman must take on that role. I don't believe that it is as cut-and-dried as we have been taught it is.



And who are the angels submissive to?

God, of course.



Ephesians 5

Okay, and...? (was there something else you wanted to say or just "Ephesians 5"? I'm confused).



So then how do you reconcile that with the above from Ephesians, directly addressed to husbands? Impossible. We have freedom within the confines of faith. Be careful to not step outside of scripture and claim freedom.

I was speaking of freedom to worship independently.



Within the confines of the authoritative structure of scripture, yes. That headcovering remains, it isn't taken away.

I'm not sure that you understand what I was talking about regarding the "veil" or "headcovering". Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the headcovering remains, it isn't taken away"?



We have liberty in our faith, within which is an established hierarchy. If that hierarchy isn't kept, we remove ourselves from freedom. Within that order of things is incredible freedom!

Yes, we have liberty in our faith - there is freedom in Christ. That's why there should be no prohibiton on women teaching and preaching and speaking and prophesying in church. If one looks at what 1 Cor. 11:8-10 is saying from the Greek and from the reasons why Paul wrote it, one can see that what has been traditionally taught regarding that Scripture is not what Paul intended.

The Parson
Aug 27th 2008, 08:27 PM
Some of us don't see Paul or anyone else placing a prohibition on it since he talks about a deacon who is a woman in Romans 16 and an apostle who is a woman in the same chapter. So if he allows it in one place and forbids it in another place there has to be something going on in one of the places that has made it ok or wrong. And since Pheobe is from a town right next to Corinth and he is writing his letter to the Romans in Corinth there must have been something else going on with the women in Ephesus where Timothy was when Paul wrote 1 Timothy and with the women in Corinth since he talked about them remaining silent when he wrote, what we call, 1 Corinthians. There is a disconnect somewhere since we see women having a role in the early church which would go against what Paul said. Or maybe, just maybe, Paul was addressing a cultural problem and not making a general rule.That deaconess you are mentioning is a deaconess because of her husband. There is no contradiction in this. Matter of fact, if you will look at the qualifications of a deacon you'll see his wife is included with him in those qualifications. Why, because she shares the responsibility with her husband. And Paul it also seems wrote this in this manner to make a point of being gender inclusive/exclusive so that there would be no doubt what he was talking about. In other words, it couldn't be twisted to say something else.

1st Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus

Whereas, with the pastor, "woman" is not in the factor at all... 1st Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Note the underlined above:

"If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work" Totally gender exclusive. The subject is if a man, not a woman desireth the office of a bishop. And again, he, not she, or they, desireth a good work.

"the husband of one wife". Gender exclusive. The woman cannot be the husband of one wife, otherwise she is practising homosexuality.

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;". Is the wife to rule the house. Is that what it tells us in the scriptures? No, if a wife rules over her husband she is not following the scriptures at all. Wouldn't that put her in the position of rebellion which the bible says is the same as witchcraft. 1st Sameul 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Please don't start the "you're taking this outta context" sorta thingey. Rebellion means rebellion.

As for the underlying reason??? 1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Two things I want you to notice here.
1. This set of passages are contained in the same book, written by the same author, about the related subjects. Why on earth would Paul say one thing in his letter and then allow the total opposite meaning to be misconstrewed in that very same letter.
2. The woman being deceived. What would you suppose this would mean. Was the Apostle being mean spirited here? No, he was telling us that man and woman are not created the same. The reason is different, (not inferior by the way), just different. Or would ya'll tell me that a woman thinks and reasons the same as a man? Does she?

OrdainedLady
Aug 27th 2008, 08:57 PM
That deaconess you are mentioning is a deaconess because of her husband. There is no contradiction in this. Matter of fact, if you will look at the qualifications of a deacon you'll see his wife is included with him in those qualifications. Why, because she shares the responsibility with her husband. And Paul it also seems wrote this in this manner to make a point of being gender inclusive/exclusive so that there would be no doubt what he was talking about. In other words, it couldn't be twisted to say something else.

1st Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus

Whereas, with the pastor, "woman" is not in the factor at all... 1st Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Note the underlined above:

"If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work" Totally gender exclusive. The subject is if a man, not a woman desireth the office of a bishop. And again, he, not she, or they, desireth a good work.

"the husband of one wife". Gender exclusive. The woman cannot be the husband of one wife, otherwise she is practising homosexuality.

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;". Is the wife to rule the house. Is that what it tells us in the scriptures? No, if a wife rules over her husband she is not following the scriptures at all. Wouldn't that put her in the position of rebellion which the bible says is the same as witchcraft. 1st Sameul 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Please don't start the "you're taking this outta context" sorta thingey. Rebellion means rebellion.

As for the underlying reason??? 1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Two things I want you to notice here.
1. This set of passages are contained in the same book, written by the same author, about the related subjects. Why on earth would paul say one thing in his letter and then allow the total opposite meaning to be misconstrewed in that very same letter.
2. The woman being deceived. What would you suppose this would mean. Was the Apostle being mean spirited here? No, he was telling us that man and woman are not created the same. The reason is different, (not inferior by the way), just different. Or would ya'll tell me that a woman thinks and reasons the same as a man? Does she?

Are you looking at the Scriptures you have quoted above from the standpoint of the original Hebrew and Greek or from the standpoint of what was written in English, irrespective of the original Greek meanings, inferences, and implications? It appears to me that you are cherry-picking and proof-texting the words on the page of the Bible version you like best in order to make a case for what you have traditionally been taught and subsequently believed was right.:dunno:

The Parson
Aug 27th 2008, 09:04 PM
Hardly my dear lady. Actually I'm taking the scriptures at face value and trusting that God preserved His word to mean exactly what He mean't it to say. I do not subscribe to the nonsense that God really didn't mean what He said and we need to interpret for Him.

The Parson
Aug 27th 2008, 09:19 PM
And just so it is understood. I also don't believe that certain parts of the New Testament do not apply to us today as well. What was true at the penning of the scriptures most definatly applies to us in the 21st century.

What I post, I post with all sincerity and love ma'am. I am not trying to demean your postition at all. Simply doing what we all do on the message board. Post what we believe. I would hope with all charity.

threebigrocks
Aug 27th 2008, 09:44 PM
I don't think I said anything that would indicate that our views ought not to conform to the mind of Christ.

Then why the rebellion against the way God has laid out the order of things? I'm not understanding your way of going about attempting to prove that women are under no authority except for God.




I never said "we shouldn't thank God for the blessings He's given to us". I'm not sure if you're not really reading what I've written or are just trying to be contrary. :( What I said is that worship is not praise and praise is not worship - and the two are not synonymous but very different actions. And as far as "a man's thoughts, actions, or deeds" reflect[ing] the very nature of His [God's] heart"...I've read what you have written, and what you are saying is contrary to scripture. The Parson laid out some excellent points of which I wholly and totally agree with. Man and woman were not made the same but different. I am in submission to my husband although I stand along side of him. Women are not less, but different. Just as with a business, the secretary is in submission to someone as she is not the president or CEO, but without her the business wouldn't be what it is.

Look at Proverbs 31. Does that paint a picture of a whimpy, walked on woman? No! But that same woman will be in submission to her husband. Do you not see the picture of husband and wife as a reflection of Christ and the church, His bride?



I was speaking of the various Bible translations that are available (NIV, KJV, NASB, etc., etc., etc.). You know...Hebrew to English and Greek to English?
I read English. I don't know any Greek or Hebrew unless I look it up. 99% of people don't understand Greek or Hebrew. Well, a vast majority anyhow. And, how many of those who do are true believers and can appropriately apply it spiritually? It is the Holy Spirit who can go above any obstacle to cause me to understand the things of God. I rely on Him, not my own understanding, to do so. So should those who understand the ancient languages that scripture was originally written in.



Sorry, but...baloney. Faith through repentance is definitely, very often, emotionally based. If you don't think so, maybe you should look at those weeping during an altar call because of broken spirits and contrite hearts before God.
Emotion is a result, a reaction, of something. It doesn't come from nowhere. I am not going to mourn a relative passing away until they do. I am not going to weep over my sinfulness until I realize I'm a sinner who has gone against a just and holy God. My joy doesn't come from nowhere but in realizing that although I'm a sinner I am saved by grace. Emotion isn't primary - it's the reaction from something else.



So, using your example above, you're essentially saying that because God purposefully "programmed [women] that way" then all women, across the board, are more emotional and all men are by the opposite default, less emotional? That may be true for the simple majority of women (and don't forget that "simple majority" would be merely 51% of the female population), but what about the minority that doesn't fall in that category? Are they freaks of nature? Wrong? Abominations? I honestly don't think you have a meaningful argument here, because your premise is shaky to begin with. Yep, that's what I mean, that's what I said. There are more emotional men and less emotional women compared to their peers, but really women are more emotional than men.

If you want to argue it, fine. Call my premise shaky, fine.




I don't buy it. Adam was more "concerned [with] pleasing his wife"? How about Adam was more interested in being greedy and getting something that he had been told he couldn't have? Painting Adam (and essentially all males of the human species) as being helpless in the face of a manipulating, wiley woman is unbelievably paranoid, sexist and stereotypical. Not to mention that it just further feeds the belief that the uncontrolled, emotional will of a woman needs to be crushed under the heel of a man.Did Eve manipulate Adam? Nope, it says she simply offered him a bite and he took it. No manipulation, Adam willingly and freely took it and ate it. He should have said "Eve are you insane??!!" But he didn't.




Here's an interesting aside: some schools of thought and Biblical historians believe that Paul was a widower and not a "confirmed bachelor". Puts a little different light on Paul's take on marriage, dontcha think?Won't build a premise on speculation. ;)




Agreed that Genesis is very complex. But, I tend to see Biblical events as continual affirmation that God has a plan and that He is in control. Agreed. That is a part of scripture which was given to us to learn what there is to learn. There are many more broad things and innumerable details and even more that lays inbetween that we can learn and see.




I agree that there needs to be one leader in the household - I just don't hold that it is always the man. There are many reasons why the man cannot act as the husband and the woman must take on that role. I don't believe that it is as cut-and-dried as we have been taught it is.
Again, The Parson touched on this. There is one head of household for the husband and wife, and it's the husband. Even if the husband is an unbeliever he is the head of his household.


Ephesians 5
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.




I'm not sure that you understand what I was talking about regarding the "veil" or "headcovering". Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the headcovering remains, it isn't taken away"? Do you see the covering in the physical or spiritual sense?




Yes, we have liberty in our faith - there is freedom in Christ. That's why there should be no prohibiton on women teaching and preaching and speaking and prophesying in church. If one looks at what 1 Cor. 11:8-10 is saying from the Greek and from the reasons why Paul wrote it, one can see that what has been traditionally taught regarding that Scripture is not what Paul intended.There is, as scripture is clear. Again, The Parson stated it clearly and precisely. No need to repeat. Scripture says what it says.

OrdainedLady
Aug 27th 2008, 10:07 PM
Hardly my dear lady. Actually I'm taking the scriptures at face value and trusting that God preserved His word to mean exactly what He mean't it to say.

I will do my best to bridle my tongue (typing fingers, actually) and stay as civil as possible, even in light of your obviously condescending tone, Parson.

Of course God said what He meant to say in His Word - as it was *originally* given to those who wrote it down. But just as mankind has degenerated and fallen away from God steadily since our fall in the Garden, so the written Word of God in the form of various versions, interpretations, and paraphrases has degenerated over time. This cannot be discounted, sir - it is fact. Just look at a KJV from the 1800's and then look at the last and most recent printing of the KJV and you will see changes and discrepencies. As with the KJV, you will find the same in any Bible version that has been printed since the original English-version Tyndale; changes, changes, and more changes.

God's Word certainly hasn't changed, but the printed Bible (Old and New Testaments) most certainly has.



I do not subscribe to the nonsense that God really didn't mean what He said and we need to interpret for Him.

While you may see what I am saying to be nonsense, I guarantee you it is actually the changing of God's given Word from what it was originally to what it is today to be the real nonsense. What's more, anyone who believes that the Bible they have in their hands today is what God said verbatim and word for word, to be the perfect and unchanged Word of God Almighty as it was in the beginning is actually a purveyor of nonsense - not the person who understands that everything man touches changes over time.

If man can create hybrid plant life and clone animals, he can certainly re-write the Word of God, sir. :cry:

OrdainedLady
Aug 27th 2008, 11:44 PM
Then why the rebellion against the way God has laid out the order of things? I'm not understanding your way of going about attempting to prove that women are under no authority except for God.

First of all, it's my opinion that you are confusing the submission of wives to their husbands with the submission of women in general.

Secondly, I fail to see how disagreeing with you or anyone else here is indicative of my "rebellion against the way God has laid out the order of things".

Accusing me of rebellion is a little over the top, don't you think? I mean, essentially, you are accusing me of witchcraft (according to I Samuel 15:23) and as anyone who is a student of the Word knows, someone who practices witchcraft is an enemy of God. I would bet that if you knew me in person, as flesh-and-blood rather than as words and pixels on a computer monitor that you wouldn't even dare to say such a thing to me or about me. How can you even consider making such a comment? I have to be honest - when I first read this from you my initial instinct was anger, but that quickly gave over to a broken heart. I love the Lord with all of my heart, soul, and mind - for someone to suggest that I am likened to a witch is incomprehensible to me. Moreover, because my name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, it's more incomprehensible to Jesus Christ. :cry:



I've read what you have written, and what you are saying is contrary to scripture. The Parson laid out some excellent points of which I wholly and totally agree with. Man and woman were not made the same but different. I am in submission to my husband although I stand along side of him. Women are not less, but different. Just as with a business, the secretary is in submission to someone as she is not the president or CEO, but without her the business wouldn't be what it is.

You are saying much without realizing it: secretary = woman.

Wow. I think your mindset it clear.



Look at Proverbs 31. Does that paint a picture of a whimpy, walked on woman? No! But that same woman will be in submission to her husband. Do you not see the picture of husband and wife as a reflection of Christ and the church, His bride?

You're working under the assumption that all women are and should be married. What about the woman who is unmarried? To whom should she be in submission to? If your answer is God, you are correct - but even so, a married woman is in submission to God first and foremost because to do otherwise is to commit idolatry. And what about the woman who is married to a man who is abusive? In your thinking, is she still in submission to the man first? If so, does she stay in submission to that husband or does she save her life and the lives of her children?



I read English. I don't know any Greek or Hebrew unless I look it up. 99% of people don't understand Greek or Hebrew. Well, a vast majority anyhow.

That's a generalization for which you have no proof. It really would behoove your argument to stay within the limits of what you can prove or at least cite a reference for.



And, how many of those who do are true believers and can appropriately apply it spiritually? It is the Holy Spirit who can go above any obstacle to cause me to understand the things of God. I rely on Him, not my own understanding, to do so. So should those who understand the ancient languages that scripture was originally written in.

We are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God - with all of the helps and dictionaries and lexicons and commentaries and Greek and Hebrew concordances that are available today, one no longer has the excuse of "I can't read Hebrew or Greek" to give a reason for not delving deep into the Word. Simply put, one doesn't have to be able to read Hebrew or Greek to be able to do word studies in the Hebrew and Greek in the 21st Century where the internet allows for all kinds of possibilities.



Emotion is a result, a reaction, of something. It doesn't come from nowhere. I am not going to mourn a relative passing away until they do.

Yet, some people do. Just because you do it differently doesn't make someone else doing it that way wrong.



I am not going to weep over my sinfulness until I realize I'm a sinner who has gone against a just and holy God. My joy doesn't come from nowhere but in realizing that although I'm a sinner I am saved by grace. Emotion isn't primary - it's the reaction from something else.

I think you are over-generalizing here. I also think you are confusing that anger is not an emotion unto itself but actually arises out of fear. In all of my years of study I have never heard that "emotion isn't primary - it's the reaction from something else".



Yep, that's what I mean, that's what I said. There are more emotional men and less emotional women compared to their peers, but really women are more emotional than men.

Sorry, but that's just your opinion - it's an old way of looking at things that's no longer thought of as the standard. Everything evolves (changes with time), old stereotypes among them.




Again, The Parson touched on this. There is one head of household for the husband and wife, and it's the husband. Even if the husband is an unbeliever he is the head of his household.

Do you realize how broad that statement is: "the head of the household"? Exactly what does "head of the household" mean to you? If a woman is raising her kids, taking care of the bills, buying the groceries, carpooling, washing the laundry, cooking the meals, seeing to the schooling of her children, etc. - isn't the woman really "head of the household"? In such a situation, how is the husband "head of the household" simply on the merit of bringing home a paycheck?

You know, in Conservative and Orthodox Judaism, the woman is the "head of the household" and the husband is the "spiritual leader". Food for thought.

Maybe you should define what *you* mean by "head of the household".



Ephesians 5
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

You do realize that the above Scripture is really more for addressing Christ's relationship to the church than an instruction on the relationships between husbands and wives?



Do you see the covering in the physical or spiritual sense?

Spiritual/figurative - that's how Paul meant it. How do you see it?



There is, as scripture is clear. Again, The Parson stated it clearly and precisely. No need to repeat. Scripture says what it says.

I guess that means you agree with Parson (and he is an unemotional man, after all) so discussion closed? :giveup:

The Parson
Aug 28th 2008, 01:10 AM
King James 1611
1st Timothie 3:8 Likewise must the Deacons bee graue, not double tongued, not giuen to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, 3:9 Holding the mysterie of the faith in a pure conscience. 3:10 And let these also first be proued; then let them vse the office of a Deacon, being found blamelesse. 3:11 Euen so must their wiues be graue; not slanderers, sober, faithfull in all things. 3:12 Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children, and their owne houses well. 3:13 For they that haue vsed the office of a Deacon well, purchase to themselues a good degree, and great boldnesse in the faith, which is in Christ Iesus.

King James 1611 AV
1st Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus

Besides the spelling, looks the same to me.

threebigrocks
Aug 28th 2008, 01:16 AM
Sorry, but that's just your opinion - it's an old way of looking at things that's no longer thought of as the standard. Everything evolves (changes with time), old stereotypes among them.

Our standard is scripture, which never changes. I'm certain we can agree with that.

How many secretaries/receptionists/administrative assistants or whatever title along those lines may apply are men? Very great many few. I agree - I've seen admin assistants be men. It's not a big deal, but the majority of people in these such positions are women. Just the way it is.

threebigrocks
Aug 28th 2008, 01:18 AM
I guess that means you agree with Parson (and he is an unemotional man, after all) so discussion closed? :giveup:

I assure you I do agree with The Parson.

I will ask you now, please refrain from digs against the mods. If you have an issue, start a thread in the Chat to the Moderators forum.

Br. Barnabas
Aug 28th 2008, 01:34 PM
That deaconess you are mentioning is a deaconess because of her husband. There is no contradiction in this. Matter of fact, if you will look at the qualifications of a deacon you'll see his wife is included with him in those qualifications. Why, because she shares the responsibility with her husband. And Paul it also seems wrote this in this manner to make a point of being gender inclusive/exclusive so that there would be no doubt what he was talking about. In other words, it couldn't be twisted to say something else.

1st Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus

I believe looking at the Greek and other translations of the text would do a world of good here. Because this is not how the Greek reads. 3:11 "Likewise women must also be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things." gune means woman primarly, it can mean wife but does not have to. wsautwς is usually translated likewise only once in the NT is it translated in this way by the KJV translators. Even in the same book and chapter they have decieded to change it's translation to "even so" since it was translated "likewise" in verse 8.

I perfer to go with the NRSV translation: "8 Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; 9they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. 11Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; 13for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus."

The office of deacon did not and does not transfer to the wife of the deacon or the husband of the deacon. The office is given to one spouse and people would not say refer to their spouse also as a deacon. Deaconess is also a made up word never used in the NT or early church writings. Deacon is gender inclusive.



Whereas, with the pastor, "woman" is not in the factor at all... 1st Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Note the underlined above:

"If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work" Totally gender exclusive. The subject is if a man, not a woman desireth the office of a bishop. And again, he, not she, or they, desireth a good work.

"the husband of one wife". Gender exclusive. The woman cannot be the husband of one wife, otherwise she is practising homosexuality.

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;". Is the wife to rule the house. Is that what it tells us in the scriptures? No, if a wife rules over her husband she is not following the scriptures at all. Wouldn't that put her in the position of rebellion which the bible says is the same as witchcraft. 1st Sameul 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Please don't start the "you're taking this outta context" sorta thingey. Rebellion means rebellion.

Ok first off Bishop is a far cry from pastor. A Bishop now just as in the 1st century was head of all the churches in a city or region. Not the head of one church but of many. Now Paul might have meant this office for men at this time but we see later on in the 9th century church there was a woman bishop. Theodora was a bishop in the church there is a mosaic of her in St. Zeno Chapel of the Church of St. Praxedis in Rome over her head is the word Episcopa the Latin word for Bishop with the femine ending. So there has been a woman Bishop and the Chruch has honored her. But still bishop is a very different thing than pastor. If you want to say women cannot be Bishops I am fine with that, I think that they can be but that is my opinion from what I have seen of women and why I think Paul is saying that women cannot be Bishops. The role of pastor or leader of one church is much different then the leader of all the churches in a city or region.



As for the underlying reason??? 1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

No Adam was not deceived it had been much better if he had been because he willingly sinned, he saw the woman eat of the fruit and he seeing that she did not die ate of it himself. He sinned out right knowing that it was wrong he was not deceived like Eve. Now this is where I believe your translation gets things right women are not to usurp authority. They can have authority and can be given authority but they cannot usurp it from men.



Two things I want you to notice here.
1. This set of passages are contained in the same book, written by the same author, about the related subjects. Why on earth would paul say one thing in his letter and then allow the total opposite meaning to be misconstrewed in that very same letter.
2. The woman being deceived. What would you suppose this would mean. Was the Apostle being mean spirited here? No, he was telling us that man and woman are not created the same. The reason is different, (not inferior by the way), just different. Or would ya'll tell me that a woman thinks and reasons the same as a man? Does she?

1. As I said before I believe this is a letter to Timothy as he is ministring in Ephesus. Paul most likely knew a little something about the church in Ephesus and how the women acted there since he stayed there for a long time. Timothy already knew everything that Paul was writing about in this part of the letter, he had been with Paul for a long time. This letter is meant to be a refresher to Timothy or saying in this place do this.

2. I believe that some women I know think and reason like many men. And I know some men that think and reason like many women. I agree that men and women are not created the same I just don't believe that being created different means that women cannot have the same role in ministry as men.

Being an Anglican and knowing a lot of Methodist I know many women in ministry. I think that they do just as good a job as men in minstry, if not better. Because if they are in ministry then it means that there has been an undenable call and that God has worked it out that they are going to be in it. Because they have to put up with so much other stuff and are going to be inspected for the ministry much harder then most men.

The Parson
Aug 28th 2008, 06:40 PM
I believe looking at the Greek and other translations of the text would do a world of good here. Because this is not how the Greek reads. 3:11 "Likewise women must also be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things." gune means woman primarly, it can mean wife but does not have to. wsautwς is usually translated likewise only once in the NT is it translated in this way by the KJV translators. Even in the same book and chapter they have decieded to change it's translation to "even so" since it was translated "likewise" in verse 8. Sir, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here but I have no intention of looking into any other translation than the King James. If I read and understood Greek to the extent that it is second only to my native language, I'd be reading the Received Text manuscripts. Or Latin for that matter reading the Old Itala Bible. I do not trust nor do I promote anything that comes from the Alexandrian texts. Sorry. So your arguement is mute to the point that I trust that God has preserved His word in the English Language in my King James. (Everybody please, do not derail this thread to start a Bible Versions debate. I didn't say what I said for that to happen.)

And a Bishop is a pastor by the way. Traditions and not scripture are what caused the office to elevate beyond pastor to place this office over many churches. The original churches were autonomous with the pastor/bishop as their messenger. Nothing more, nothing less.

amazzin
Aug 28th 2008, 06:42 PM
And a Bishop is a pastor by the way. Traditions and not scripture are what caused the office to elevate beyond pastor to place this office over many churches. The original churches were autonomous with the pastor/bishop as their messenger. Nothing more, nothing less.

As a pastor I support this comment 100%

threebigrocks
Aug 28th 2008, 06:49 PM
Women have a strong place in the lives of friends and family, and can do much as far as ministry in the church. For example, they are given authority to teach children and other women. They can evangelize and bring people to Christ. In many places - that's a majority of those within a local body of believers. I mentioned Proverbs 31, and that is not a weak woman! Women are not weak.

They are however not ones to be the leader, a bishop/pastor, over any body of believers in that role. It's not appointed scripturally for a woman to be in that role. We get so hung up on on this aspect that I think sometimes we forget the very, very busy roles of the women in our churches. There is more for a woman to do within the church and home, married or not, than we can shake a stick at!

Br. Barnabas
Aug 28th 2008, 07:23 PM
Sir, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here but I have no intention of looking into any other translation than the King James. If I read and understood Greek to the extent that it is second only to my native language, I'd be reading the Received Text manuscripts. Or Latin for that matter reading the Old Itala Bible. I do not trust nor do I promote anything that comes from the Alexandrian texts. Sorry. So your arguement is mute to the point that I trust that God has preserved His word in the English Language in my King James. (Everybody please, do not derail this thread to start a Bible Versions debate. I didn't say what I said for that to happen.)

And a Bishop is a pastor by the way. Traditions and not scripture are what caused the office to elevate beyond pastor to place this office over many churches. The original churches were autonomous with the pastor/bishop as their messenger. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well since I read Greek and Hebrew you will have to excuse the fact that I want to go back to the orignal languages and understand Holy Writ in the orignal language. And find that more modern translations of the Bible are far superior to those of pervious generations because of the older manuscripts that have been found not just of the Bible but of other Greek writings that give a much wider knowledge of the Greek language.

As for the issue of Bishop being a pastor again I will have to disagree there were several churches in some cities and each had it's own leader or pastor but they all had the same bishop or head over them all. And I shall have to defer to 1st and 2nd century church practice to say that Bishop does not equal pastor.

KingFisher
Aug 28th 2008, 07:32 PM
As for the issue of Bishop being a pastor again I will have to disagree there were several churches in some cities and each had it's own leader or pastor but they all had the same bishop or head over them all. And I shall have to defer to 1st and 2nd century church practice to say that Bishop does not equal pastor.

Ok...but this is Bible Chat. Seems better to differ to the scriptures. Right?

Br. Barnabas
Aug 28th 2008, 07:39 PM
Ok...but this is Bible Chat. Seems better to differ to the scriptures. Right?

Yeah and I believe that the Scriptures are saying that a Bishop and a pastor are not the same thing. Others seem to disagree with me and we are both looking at the same Scriptures. So...what must be done? Either Scripture is not clear, which I think it is, or we go back to the earliest examples that we have of how the Church worked and look at that example, which is what I have done.

KingFisher
Aug 28th 2008, 09:49 PM
Yeah and I believe that the Scriptures are saying that a Bishop and a pastor are not the same thing.

Hi Uriel,

Could you explain this then...

Seems like 1 Peter 5:1-2 brings them together. Peter instructs the elders
to be good bishops as they pastor.

"Therefore, I exhort the elders [presbuteros] among you, as your fellow
elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the
glory that is to be revealed, shepherd [pomaino] the flock of God among
you, exercising oversight [episkopeo] not under compulsion, but voluntarily,
according to the will of God."

And...

Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which
the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopos], to shepherd [pomaino]
the church of God."

I think it's pretty clear they're the same. With that there shouldn't be any
reason to differ to anything but what the scriptures say.

KingFisher

OrdainedLady
Aug 29th 2008, 03:20 AM
I believe that the Scriptures are saying that a Bishop and a pastor are not the same thing. Others seem to disagree with me and we are both looking at the same Scriptures. So...what must be done? Either Scripture is not clear, which I think it is, or we go back to the earliest examples that we have of how the Church worked and look at that example, which is what I have done.

You are on the right track here, Uriel.

There are three ministerial offices that are outlined in the New Testament: Bishop, Pastor, Deacon. For Bishop, you have the Greek "Episkopos" (an overseer, to look or watch). For Pastor, you have the Greek "Poimen" (a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks - not merely one who feeds them). For Deacon, you have the Greek "Diakonos" (a servant, whether as doing servile work, or as an attendant rendering free service, without particular reference to its character). Each one is definitely seperate, each one is certainly different as demonstrated so clearly from the original Greek. :amen:

The Parson
Aug 29th 2008, 05:35 AM
Well since I read Greek and Hebrew you will have to excuse the fact that I want to go back to the orignal languages and understand Holy Writ in the orignal language. And find that more modern translations of the Bible are far superior to those of pervious generations because of the older manuscripts that have been found not just of the Bible but of other Greek writings that give a much wider knowledge of the Greek language.

As for the issue of Bishop being a pastor again I will have to disagree there were several churches in some cities and each had it's own leader or pastor but they all had the same bishop or head over them all. And I shall have to defer to 1st and 2nd century church practice to say that Bishop does not equal pastor.Your persistance does you credit I must say my friend. You'll have to understand that my understanding on the matter and yours are historically different. Mine is that of an ancient Anabaptist and more specifically that of a Paterin, Montanist, or Paulician on my part. Yours is appearantly one of the church of England.


Edinburg Cyclopedia:
"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.Our understanding hasn't changed even from the earliest letters of the brethren but, from the first century forward, people like the Nicolaitanes, and then the hierarchy created by Constantine etc., and the literary tampering of Oregin, changed a great many churches from the original democratic type to the bureaucratic flavor of churches.

Neither have some of us decided that scriptural truths have been hidden from us until the last couple of centuries so that we would have to go and decipher the word to find those things that have been hidden from the brethren until the present day. Wow, that was a long sentence... :D

So, from my standpoint, that is to say IMHO, if the Bible says it's a white duck, it's a white duck, not a mallard or a goose.

KingFisher
Aug 29th 2008, 11:45 AM
You are on the right track here, Uriel.

There are three ministerial offices that are outlined in the New Testament: Bishop, Pastor, Deacon. For Bishop, you have the Greek "Episkopos" (an overseer, to look or watch). For Pastor, you have the Greek "Poimen" (a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks - not merely one who feeds them). For Deacon, you have the Greek "Diakonos" (a servant, whether as doing servile work, or as an attendant rendering free service, without particular reference to its character). Each one is definitely seperate, each one is certainly different as demonstrated so clearly from the original Greek. :amen:

My Lady,:D

I'd like to ask you the same question as Uriel then.
If they (bishop/pastor) are different, could you explain this...

1 Peter 5:1-2 brings them together. Peter instructs the elders to be good
bishops as they pastor.

1Pe 5:1 The elders [πρεσβύτερος][Strong's G4245, presbuteros] which are
among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings
of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 Feed [ποιμαίνω][Strong's G4165, poimaino] the flock of God which
is among you, taking the oversight [ἐπισκοπέω][Strong's G1983, episkopeo]
[thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a
ready mind;

Thanks,
KingFisher

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 05:03 AM
My Lady,:D

I'd like to ask you the same question as Uriel then.
If they (bishop/pastor) are different, could you explain this...

1 Peter 5:1-2 brings them together. Peter instructs the elders to be good
bishops as they pastor.

1Pe 5:1 The elders [πρεσβύτερος][Strong's G4245, presbuteros] which are
among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings
of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 Feed [ποιμαίνω][Strong's G4165, poimaino] the flock of God which
is among you, taking the oversight [ἐπισκοπέω][Strong's G1983, episkopeo]
[thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a
ready mind;

Thanks,
KingFisher

"Episkopeo" the verb (describing the act of looking upon, caring for) is used in verse 2, not "episkopos" the noun (describing the position of overseer).

Buckeye Doug
Aug 30th 2008, 08:13 PM
1 Timothy 2:12 seems to make it very clear: Women are not to teach or have authority over men in the Church. These roles are reserved to men.

If we just follow the Word, life will be so much better.

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 30th 2008, 08:19 PM
1 Timothy 2-12 seems to make it very clear: Women are not to teach or have authority over men in the Church. These roles are reserved to men.

If we just follow the Word, life will be so much better.


AGREED.

Why do we have to overcomplicate things?!

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 09:34 PM
AGREED.

Why do we have to overcomplicate things?!

:o!!!

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but...
Are you saying that learning what the original Greek and Hebrew said vs. just believing what the Bible version you like best says is "overcomplicat[ing] things"?

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 09:36 PM
1 Timothy 2-12 seems to make it very clear: Women are not to teach or have authority over men in the Church. These roles are reserved to men.

If we just follow the Word, life will be so much better.


Have you investigated the original Greek and Hebrew to see what I Tim. 2-12 says?

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 30th 2008, 10:07 PM
:o!!!

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but...
Are you saying that learning what the original Greek and Hebrew said vs. just believing what the Bible version you like best says is "overcomplicat[ing] things"?

I didn't say that...You did.

I personally prefer the KJV or the NKJV....and I know neither Hebrew nor Greek, which I assume disqualifies me from this discussion.

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 10:14 PM
I didn't say that...You did.

No, I didn't say that. I asked you if that was your meaning.



I personally prefer the KJV or the NKJV....and I know neither Hebrew nor Greek, which I assume disqualifies me from this discussion.

Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek is available along with Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words for the KJV. Not being able to read Hebrew and/or Greek doesn't disqualify you from anything. :)

The Parson
Aug 30th 2008, 10:18 PM
But then again, we need to read the Greek and Hebrew to make sure that the Bible really means what it says because........... OK, I'm a little fuzzy on this...

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 30th 2008, 10:19 PM
No, I didn't say that. I asked you if that was your meaning.

Sorry about that.

No, that was not my meaning.

I do not have access to any of the materials you listed, so let's just say for now I am disqualified. :)

Anyhow, I did respond to one of your posts in this thread earlier (under a different username), OL, but you never replied, so I just decided to bow out.

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 10:32 PM
But then again, we need to read the Greek and Hebrew to make sure that the Bible really means what it says because........... OK, I'm a little fuzzy on this...

Here's a recommendation for you, Parson: The Hebrew-Greek Key Word King James Study Bible put out by AMG publishers. It has a Strong's concordance in it and throughout both the Old and New Testament it has a corresponding Strong's number to reference the concordance in the back. The Strong's numbers are connected to key words in the verses and help with tense and definitions. The Hebrew and Greek in the concordance are written in the actual language as well as the English transliteration, so knowing how to read Greek and Hebrew is not necessary.

I encourage you to look for this Bible at a local Bible bookstore or even online. I know that Amazon.com has them available in several versions. I sincerely believe that getting an understanding of what the original meanings in the original languages will give you a deeper understanding and love for the Word of God. :pp

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 10:34 PM
Sorry about that.

No, that was not my meaning.

I do not have access to any of the materials you listed, so let's just say for now I am disqualified. :)

Anyhow, I did respond to one of your posts in this thread earlier (under a different username), OL, but you never replied, so I just decided to bow out.

Oh, gee. I'm sure I didn't intend to not reply to you. What user name were you utilizing and what was the post about?

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 30th 2008, 10:34 PM
Here's a recommendation for you, Parson: The Hebrew-Greek Key Word King James Study Bible put out by AMG publishers. It has a Strong's concordance in it and throughout both the Old and New Testament it has a corresponding Strong's number to reference the concordance in the back. The Strong's numbers are connected to key words in the verses and help with tense and definitions. The Hebrew and Greek in the concordance are written in the actual language as well as the English transliteration, so knowing how to read Greek and Hebrew is not necessary.

I encourage you to look for this Bible at a local Bible bookstore or even online. I know that Amazon.com has them available in several versions. I sincerely believe that getting an understanding of what the original meanings in the original languages will give you a deeper understanding and love for the Word of God. :pp

That's good information. Thank you

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 30th 2008, 10:35 PM
Oh, gee. I'm sure I didn't intend to not reply to you. What user name were you utilizing and what was the post about?


It was in this thread, and it was about God's created order, and the username I used was cloudburst.

The Parson
Aug 30th 2008, 10:48 PM
Actually my question was retorical. My degree's are in Biblical studies and church history ma'am. My library is full of such.

The question would be then, the Word of God, not referencing the versions, but the Word in general, as it is preached, is it preached according to the preachers understandings of facts and details related to the Greek and Hebrew or by the utterance given by the Holy Spirit? This isn't a trick question nor are my intents more than to see what your belief would be.

For instance, how would you prepare to deliver a sermon? This is just out of curiousity sake. Would you say, here is what the Bible says but here is what it really means. Please induldge me in my folly.

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 10:53 PM
It was in this thread, and it was about God's created order, and the username I used was cloudburst.

Okay - I went back to look for it. I remember now that I didn't reply back because I felt that you had said what you wanted to say on the subject and I said what I felt I needed to say on the subject. Some posts, IMO, are kind of "unanswerable" if both sides have stated their opinions fully. In my experience, continuing back and forth can cause one side or both to just turn the whole thing into an argument. In forums such as this, I try to avoid endless bantering back and forth as much as possible. :)

Does that make sense?

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 10:55 PM
Actually my question was retorical.

Oh, I see. Hmmm...

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 30th 2008, 10:56 PM
Okay - I went back to look for it. I remember now that I didn't reply back because I felt that you had said what you wanted to say on the subject and I said what I felt I needed to say on the subject. Some posts, IMO, are kind of "unanswerable" if both sides have stated their opinions fully. In my experience, continuing back and forth can cause one side or both to just turn the whole thing into an argument. In forums such as this, I try to avoid endless bantering back and forth as much as possible. :)

Does that make sense?

Yes, and I agree.

Thank you.

OrdainedLady
Aug 30th 2008, 11:16 PM
The question would be then, the Word of God, not referencing the versions, but the Word in general, as it is preached, is it preached according to the preachers understandings of facts and details related to the Greek and Hebrew or by the utterance given by the Holy Spirit?

Well, that depends on the individual doing the preaching, doesn't it? It also depends on how well the one doing the preaching knows the Scriptures they are referencing. It also can depend on where the one doing the preaching is on their spiritual journey. None of us have "arrived", so to speak, as followers of Christ we are on a spiritual journey, a path that leads to eternity with God. I have heard it said that we start learning when we are born and if we are wise don't stop learning until we die. So it is with the born-again believer: when we become new creatures in Christ we are to start developing the mind of Christ, walk the narrow path that leads to the Lord and develop and become who God intends for us to be along the way. There's another saying that touches on this in a cutesy sort of way: please be patient, God isn't finished with me yet. There's nothing I've ever seen in the Bible that tells us we are to be nearly completed and at the end of our journey with Christ before we can preach and teach and bring forth the Gospel.

As we go along our journey of faith, our knowledge of the Word our understanding of the Word - all of it, is going to evolve and change with time. Sometimes we'll get it right, sometimes we'll get it wrong. No one on earth, no matter how experienced or learned they are in all things spiritual, has all the answers all the time.

It's a essentially a process for everyone.



This isn't a trick question nor are my intents more than to see what your belief would be.

For instance, how would you prepare to deliver a sermon? This is just out of curiousity sake. Would you say, here is what the Bible says but here is what it really means. Please induldge me in my folly.

Well, first of all, I don't believe that every sermon has to be an in-depth Bible study. I believe that worship services should be for worship more than study and that Sunday School and Bible studies are for in-depth study of the Word. But, in preparing a sermon that would include some in-depth study of the Word I have always had the Scripture read first and then touch on the different key aspects of the Scripture. During that sermon, I would then explain as best and plainly as possible that what the writer of the verse or book said in the original language meant such-and-so - always making sure to explain it in layman's terms so that no one is left out in their understanding. In my experience, it's exactly for this kind of teaching that taking small portions of Scripture to teach on in a sermon (not a Bible study) is important. Too much can confuse and cloud the minds of some. I've also found it clarifying to add something like: "What [insert name of Book writer] was saying by using the word [insert English word] is [such and so]. The Greek word used here originally is [Greek word] which translates to [English definition]."

Does that answer your question?

The Parson
Aug 30th 2008, 11:33 PM
Does that answer your question?No ma'am. Not exactly it doesn't. If you might readdress my first question as you may have misunderstood what I was asking. I hate it when that happens! :eek: Happens to me sometimes also.
The question would be then, the Word of God, not referencing the versions, but the Word in general, as it is preached, is it preached according to the preachers understandings of facts and details related to the Greek and Hebrew or by the utterance given by the Holy Spirit?And let me take a verse and please tell me what you believe it is saying. Again, if you wouldn't mind indulging me a bit. 1st Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

OrdainedLady
Aug 31st 2008, 12:27 AM
No ma'am. Not exactly it doesn't. If you might readdress my first question as you may have misunderstood what I was asking.

I can't really address it any differently than I already did with the exception of this: when you say "the utterance given by the Holy Spirit" I assume you are referring to when the Word was given to the writer of the Book (the prophetic books of the OT, the NT Epistles, etc.), correct?

If so...the Holy Spirit gave the original Word of God to the writers, but what we have today is not the original Word of God given to the writers. What we have today (even the KJV, sorry) are changed, adapted, amended versions of "The Bible", not the original Word of God. Are we to say that we are like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Biblically based sects who believe that the canon of Scripture is not closed but open to new revelation and interpretation? Not literally, but yes, with all of the changes that have been made to the Bible (especially over the last three centuries), we *are* saying, in essence, that the canon of Scripture is not closed everytime another version of the Bible is produced. Now, I don't personally hold to that belief but I also don't have a copy of the earliest Masoretic or New Testament texts. In lieu of such, I study as best I can from the what I believe to be the best of all the current versions available that holds true to the original Hebrew and Greek (again, not the KJV, sorry). It's my responsibility, and the responsibility of every believer, to study to show ourselves approved unto God. How can one do that without looking to the original languages?



And let me take a verse and please tell me what you believe it is saying. Again, if you wouldn't mind indulging me a bit.

Well, I never mind discussing the Bible, but I guess at this point I am curious and a little leary about why you are asking - especially considering our forum "history".



1st Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

First you have to take "long hair" from vs. 14 and find out what the Greek word is here. Long hair in the Greek usage here is "komao" = tresses of hair or locks of hair. It originates from the root word meaning "to take care of" and is used only three times in the NT; all three occasions in I Corinthians 11 (the word normally employed in the Greek NT for hair was "thrix"). Because the word "komao" is used only by Paul and only on this occasion, it is believed that he was addressing a pagan practice of fixing the hair in a feminine manner. What Paul is condemning here is the practice *for the men* in vs. 14 (rather than the length of the hair) but condoning it for women in vs. 15.

Now, you really can't look at these verses without also looking at verse 13: "Judge for yourselves..." We see in verse 16 that in Corinth at that time there really was no custom regarding hair length ("we have no such custom"), so Paul prefaces the entire subject with "judge for yourselves", allowing the interpretation to be individual depending on the cultural standards of the day.

So, there you go - that's what I believe it is saying based on the history and practices of the Corinthians, based on the original Greek, and based on the cultural norms of the day.

Buckeye Doug
Aug 31st 2008, 02:12 AM
Have you investigated the original Greek and Hebrew to see what I Tim. 2-12 says?

No, I haven't. But the scholars at the Lockman Foundation have. (publishers of the NASB)

OrdainedLady
Aug 31st 2008, 02:21 AM
No, I haven't. But the scholars at the Lockman Foundation have. (publishers of the NASB)

I see. :bounce:

Buckeye Doug
Aug 31st 2008, 02:26 AM
Thanks, I have.

God bless.

KingFisher
Sep 3rd 2008, 02:28 PM
"Episkopeo" the verb (describing the act of looking upon, caring for) is used in verse 2, not "episkopos" the noun (describing the position of overseer).

Hi again Ordained Lady,

Sorry it took awhile for me to respond back. For that I apologize. The
area I live in was evacuated ahead of Gustav. I didn't have access to a
computer.

I'd like to look at the scriptures again. Let's see if your right that a bishop
would not be the focus of these scriptures because of the verb tense of
"Episkopeo"...


1Pe 5:1 The elders [πρεσβύτερος][Strong's G4245, presbuteros] which are
among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings
of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 Feed [ποιμαίνω][Strong's G4165, poimaino] the flock of God which
is among you, taking the oversight [ἐπισκοπέω][Strong's G1983, episkopeo]
[thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; I think the use of elders [πρεσβύτερος][Strong's G4245, presbuteros] in
verse 1 shows who is being addressed.

presbyteros (Strong's G4245)
1) elder, of age,

a) the elder of two people

b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior

1) forefathers

2) a term of rank or office

a) among the Jews

1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the
rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)

2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered
justice

b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or
churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters
interchangeably

c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on
thrones around the throne of God

To me it couldn't be any more obvious that Peter is addressing the position
of bishop.

KingFisher

OldChurchGuy
Sep 4th 2008, 11:58 AM
I can't really address it any differently than I already did with the exception of this: when you say "the utterance given by the Holy Spirit" I assume you are referring to when the Word was given to the writer of the Book (the prophetic books of the OT, the NT Epistles, etc.), correct?

If so...the Holy Spirit gave the original Word of God to the writers, but what we have today is not the original Word of God given to the writers. What we have today (even the KJV, sorry) are changed, adapted, amended versions of "The Bible", not the original Word of God. Are we to say that we are like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Biblically based sects who believe that the canon of Scripture is not closed but open to new revelation and interpretation? Not literally, but yes, with all of the changes that have been made to the Bible (especially over the last three centuries), we *are* saying, in essence, that the canon of Scripture is not closed everytime another version of the Bible is produced. Now, I don't personally hold to that belief but I also don't have a copy of the earliest Masoretic or New Testament texts. In lieu of such, I study as best I can from the what I believe to be the best of all the current versions available that holds true to the original Hebrew and Greek (again, not the KJV, sorry). It's my responsibility, and the responsibility of every believer, to study to show ourselves approved unto God. How can one do that without looking to the original languages?



Well, I never mind discussing the Bible, but I guess at this point I am curious and a little leary about why you are asking - especially considering our forum "history".



First you have to take "long hair" from vs. 14 and find out what the Greek word is here. Long hair in the Greek usage here is "komao" = tresses of hair or locks of hair. It originates from the root word meaning "to take care of" and is used only three times in the NT; all three occasions in I Corinthians 11 (the word normally employed in the Greek NT for hair was "thrix"). Because the word "komao" is used only by Paul and only on this occasion, it is believed that he was addressing a pagan practice of fixing the hair in a feminine manner. What Paul is condemning here is the practice *for the men* in vs. 14 (rather than the length of the hair) but condoning it for women in vs. 15.

Now, you really can't look at these verses without also looking at verse 13: "Judge for yourselves..." We see in verse 16 that in Corinth at that time there really was no custom regarding hair length ("we have no such custom"), so Paul prefaces the entire subject with "judge for yourselves", allowing the interpretation to be individual depending on the cultural standards of the day.

So, there you go - that's what I believe it is saying based on the history and practices of the Corinthians, based on the original Greek, and based on the cultural norms of the day.

Well put, OrdainedLady. I hope you continue to post on this website. I appreciate and admire your viewpoint.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Cpt Carter
Sep 5th 2008, 07:58 AM
Wow. I found this thread to be so offensive that I couldn't get past page 5. Very sad.

And for the record, there were "Deaconesses" in the early church (Priscilla, Phoebe) - a very far advancement from Old Testament times where women were sexual slaves / concubines. The caveman, hear me roar days were over when Jesus arrived on the scene.

There's a reason I can only stand to read these forums for no longer than 20 minutes, because it only takes a short while and I see these arguments, mincing words and intent in the Bible like it was a court of law. There's no winners in this. Do some of you really think God would be so narrow minded as to only use men as instruments of His will and only give certain fruits of the Spirit to specific genders? Really? God has given you so much wisdom that you can decide for people you don't even know?

And if your response is, 1 Timothy says this... then let's talk about Jesus preaching on the Sabbath and healing and miracles all done on the Sabbath that He didn't heed. There are plenty of things in 1 Timothy that are not done in 2008 (head covering being one of them). The Law is over with His arrival. The fact that Jesus even had women as part of His disciples-group showed the very signs that women were being restored to a place of dignity. Mary was the first to tell everyone she had seen Jesus resurrected. If women can't proclaim God's goodness then something is very wrong in your church.

And by the way, poochie, very offended with these words:
II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)

I have neither a husband or children, just God. I'm beautiful, young and smart and trust me, I have had many suitors, but my reason on this earth is not to procreate or be silent and treated like rubbish by men. By the way - most believe this should be "man" singular as in Husband! My duty to Christ on this earth is equal to any man's, my ticket into heaven is the same color, size, everything as yours and it was obtained the same way - by accepting Jesus as my Savior and repenting of my sin.

It's arrogant to proclaim to know what God has told someone to do, all I know is that it's not my job to question the Holy Spirit, only to use the discernment of the Holy Spirit to know what is the will of God for me to do in that situation. If you go to God and He says, don't be a member of a church that has a woman speaking at church or ministering to people, then don't go. If He tells you to go, then go. Some of you guys are banking too much on Greek meanings of words instead of the best guide God gives us - His Holy Spirit. (which most believe we're in the end times when the HS is supposed to be even more strong!) If you truly have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit lives in you, then use what God has given you over 20 translations of a word! Without the Bible, He has given you all the tools you need, because the HS lives in you, to be the person He wants you to be. (and trust me, nothing is more repulsive than a man screaming for a woman to obey him while he's thumping his Bible).

Good luck! Hopefully the next time I stop in I'll find a more loving thread to read!!

diffangle
Sep 5th 2008, 02:39 PM
For me the Bible is the Word of God and is relevant for my life today.

For you the Bible is a culture book that is not relevant for your ministry and life.

This is the difference between you and me.

I may not be a Fundamentalist, but I do believe in the Bible and hold to it and its black and white teachings.


Yet you don't believe the gift of prophecy is for today? :confused

Oregongrown
Sep 14th 2008, 08:03 PM
Your mind is made up, what's there to say except you are mislead

but imo, it is not my job to "tell" someone they are mislead in the way you did. I believe that instead of saying you are mislead, state that you believe this because this is in the bible. Then it is not like a personal attack. Also, then the seed is planted, like you have fertilized the ground with love instead of "self-righteousness" which does not bear fruit as far as I've learned.

God bless your sister in Christ:) denise

Oregongrown
Sep 14th 2008, 08:06 PM
I agree with you. Paul commended Timothy's mother and grandmother for his spiritual training:

"when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also." II Tim 1:5

God bless, a sister in Christ who knows her role as God created it;)

Oregongrown
Sep 14th 2008, 08:08 PM
[quote=Cpt Carter;1776675]

A man who understands Godly submission of himself before God wouldn't do so. Servitude is through humility and not Lording over another, just as Christ did.


God never meant us to be "unequal" and we are all loved equally, but, we have different roles we were indeed, created for. Man and women both are guilty of messing that up, sin, again:(

God bless, ysic, denise

Oregongrown
Sep 14th 2008, 08:14 PM
And just so it is understood. I also don't believe that certain parts of the New Testament do not apply to us today as well. What was true at the penning of the scriptures most definatly applies to us in the 21st century.

What I post, I post with all sincerity and love ma'am. I am not trying to demean your postition at all. Simply doing what we all do on the message board. Post what we believe. I would hope with all charity.

This forum is the only place I ever heard of "the Bible" not all being written to us, or to ALL people. Even this country bumpkin knows that people back then are no different than we are. Different technology is about the only difference at all, but same ole flesh, same ole sin.

God bless, ysic, denise;)

Oregongrown
Sep 14th 2008, 08:22 PM
God called me when I was fifteen for the job I do today.

He called me to intensely learn scripture as one day I would teach it.

that justifies women pastors or women in leadership over men? Man was creating first, in God's image, women was made from man's rib. From "his side". This is so like God to help teach us our roles, our places our purpose. I can talk a blue-streak and I can teach, but I would not attempt teaching a man(unbeliever or believer)the Word. I would direct an unbeliever to a christian man. I respect Gods Word, I also respect christian men as long as I see them doing their best in God's role for them. We are all human and I put no one on a pedestal, Only Jesus gets that position:)

God bless, a sister in Christ, denise

Lo-Lo
Sep 14th 2008, 09:12 PM
:hug: First all hugs to everyone! I have read this thread and I am sorry to see such hurt feelings over the office of Pastor. What is wrong with women and men having different functions/roles in a church? I for one am glad that a woman is not in our pulpit at our church (yes, I am a woman). I have no problem with men only being a Pastor of a church. I also believe this is the only position women should not serve in. The reference in 1 Tim 2:12 directly refers to preaching in my humble opinion. I am allowed to teach/disciple in Bible Studies, serve, and fill leadership positions in the church as long as it does not include the office of Pastor. Nor am I angry that I am excluded from that role.

Obviously, even women are not going to come to agreement on this issue. Guess what, that is okay as long as we still can love and have fellowship together because what is most important is our faith in our returning King, Jesus Christ.

:kiss: In God's Amazing Grace!

Oregongrown
Sep 14th 2008, 11:20 PM
:hug: First all hugs to everyone! I have read this thread and I am sorry to see such hurt feelings over the office of Pastor. What is wrong with women and men having different functions/roles in a church? I for one am glad that a woman is not in our pulpit at our church (yes, I am a woman). I have no problem with men only being a Pastor of a church. I also believe this is the only position women should not serve in. The reference in 1 Tim 2:12 directly refers to preaching in my humble opinion. I am allowed to teach/disciple in Bible Studies, serve, and fill leadership positions in the church as long as it does not include the office of Pastor. Nor am I angry that I am excluded from that role.

Obviously, even women are not going to come to agreement on this issue. Guess what, that is okay as long as we still can love and have fellowship together because what is most important is our faith in our returning King, Jesus Christ.

:kiss: In God's Amazing Grace!

I see you right in every way. The only thing that came to my mind as an addition, is really for myself. But if it helps others, than that's Gods deal:) I find it another place where we need to obey and submit to God's Way. No, not everyone will see the scripture the same. So back to you girl, you said it best, God bless a sister in Christ, denise:):hug:

Gospel-Witness
Sep 14th 2008, 11:53 PM
that justifies women pastors or women in leadership over men? Man was creating first, in God's image, women was made from man's rib. From "his side". This is so like God to help teach us our roles, our places our purpose. I can talk a blue-streak and I can teach, but I would not attempt teaching a man(unbeliever or believer)the Word. I would direct an unbeliever to a christian man. I respect Gods Word, I also respect christian men as long as I see them doing their best in God's role for them. We are all human and I put no one on a pedestal, Only Jesus gets that position:)

God bless, a sister in Christ, denise

I'm way late coming into this discussion, so forgive if my comments are irrelevant, but I wanted to just throw another log on the fire, so to speak.

Yes, the Bible contains commands that women are not to speak in church, or at least not with authority over a man. But what many people are not aware of is that during the years following these early inspired writings women, who were called "deaconesses," were vital to the role of the early church. Not with authority over men, but in their ability to evangelize and convert believers to Christ. Because the early Christians were severely persecuted by the Roman Empire (especially the men) there was a real void in the church.....and many faithful women with a strong desire to spread the Gospel took up the torch and carried it so that the church would keep growing. And despite their being women who were looked at with a lowly social status, and despite the persecutions the church did grow....thanks to the many women who served our Lord by stepping in and proclaiming His Good News!

Not saying that this changes anything about this debate, but it does show that women have served Christ is big, big ways....mostly through their faithful proclamation of the Gospel to others. I personally think that without this servitude to Christ and His church I do not think that it would have survived the hard years of persecution as well as it did.

God bless the women who live their lives in Christ!! :)

Lo-Lo
Sep 15th 2008, 11:29 AM
No, you are not throwing a log into the fire ;). A deaconness is still under the authority of the Pastor therefore women can serve in mighty ways by ministering to the needs of the church body. Many women serve in this capacity but are not given the name of deaconness.

In God's Amazing Grace :pp!

The Parson
Sep 15th 2008, 07:28 PM
This forum is the only place I ever heard of "the Bible" not all being written to us, or to ALL people. Even this country bumpkin knows that people back then are no different than we are. Different technology is about the only difference at all, but same ole flesh, same ole sin.

God bless, ysic, denise;)Check my post OG. I said the Bible is written to all of us. Where on earth do you get the idea I said otherwise?

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 04:20 AM
Most if not all of you are Evangelical so in evangelicalism the role of women in ministry is a debate. I personally believe that women cant be pastors or hold spiritual authority over a man. But I believe that a woman can teach a man (mathematics, social skills, history,etc). I also believe women can and should teach children in the church, a woman can give her testimony in church, lead worship, and pray out loud,etc..

Fundamentalists do not debate this issue because its assumed that women must be completely silent and passive in the church. I was at a Fundamentalist church this past Sunday and there women CANNOT teach children alone or without a man present. I have also run into Fundamentalist females at the school I am attending that do not believe they can pray out loud nor email or talk with a man in private. This means at this school many believe that women cannot tutor a man that needs help in a academic subject. So a woman cannot teach a man in anything according to them.

In Evangelicalism my views are considered conservative, but in Fundamentalism they may not be.


CBMW (http://www.cbmw.org/) is a conservative evangelical ministry that emphasis a return to the biblical role of men and women. However most Fundamentalists ignore CBMW, CARM (http://www.carm.org/) or any associations with evangelicals.

Below is a outline I wrote on the topic.

The Role of Women in the Ministry
1 Tim 2:9-14Theme- Women in the ministry

Introduction- This short passage of scripture contains instructions on the role of women in the ministry. This passage is not cultural, but is universal for all churches and all Christians of all times. So many liberal Christians these days have misinterpreted the clear teachings presented in this passage to fit their felt needs or even better their itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). These teachings are not only taught here but also in 1 Cor 14. The teachings are to all churches of all time. The teachings are in no way cultural as liberal proponents commonly argue.

I. The appropriate dress demeanor of women (v.9-10)
A. Women are to dress modestly (v.9)
B. Women are not to dress proudly (v.9)
C. Women are to be known by their good deeds (v.10).

II. Women can’t teach or preach (v.13-13)
A. Women should be passive and must fully submit to men (v.13)
B. Women cant teach/preach or have authority over a man, for she must be silent (v.13)

(Application) I come from a California contemporary evangelical background and amongst these types it’s commonly believed that women can preach, teach and have authority over a man. These types retranslate this "offensive" passage of scripture to itch their already itching ears (2 Tim 4:3). But the bible is quite black and white here and must be proclaimed/followed regardless of whether or not the content is offensive. The teachings that women cant preach or have authority over men is incredibly offensive in liberal areas like California, so the people out there re-interpret the teachings to fit their liberal churches.

III. God's Biblical Design (v.13-14)
A. The creation mandate from the beginning was that men were the leaders over women (v.13)
B. The woman was deceived before the man. Women are not fit as leaders over men (v.14)

Conclusion- Althoughthese teachings are offensive to those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3), they are to followed regardless. Serious Bible preaching Christians obey these teachings and strive to follow the clear teachings of the word of God. Liberals retranslate these teachings to fit their traditions, and in doing so are taking away from the Word of God. The teachings are that women can’t teach, preach or have authority over a man. These teachings are not "cultural" but are to be followed in the present.

Well, the first error is that all women must submit to men, when scripture clearly teaches that a woman is to submit to her OWN husband, it only teaches submission in marriage. Then the Bible teaches WE are to submit to one another.

I have visited one of "those" churches, and they totally overlook Deborah as one of the judges in scripture. Anytime one has to delete, or change scriptures to make their doctrine valid something is very wrong.

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 04:24 AM
If you are preaching then it is not Biblical for you to do so for you must be silent.

Read 1 Tim 3 and then ask yourself why you are serving in a leadership position over men.

I posted to you, however since you do not believe that women can teach to men in the area of spiritual things I know that you will not hear what I have to say so from now one I will post to others...:pp

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 04:35 AM
I posted to you, however since you do not believe that women can teach to men in the area of spiritual things I know that you will not hear what I have to say so from now one I will post to others...:pp

Over women. Women have many important roles they can fill according to the gifts God has bestowed on each saved person. This does not mean women are "less than" or not equally loved by God. We have just as important of functions as the men:) I love my place/role in the Body of Christ. God's Way is always the best, I mean as I see His Way:)

God bless, in Christ, denise:)

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 04:50 AM
Well, the first error is that all women must submit to men, when scripture clearly teaches that a woman is to submit to her OWN husband, it only teaches submission in marriage. Then the Bible teaches WE are to submit to one another.

I have visited one of "those" churches, and they totally overlook Deborah as one of the judges in scripture. Anytime one has to delete, or change scriptures to make their doctrine valid something is very wrong.

as women, to be in leadership roles, if there are Godly men to fill them.

I am not disagreeing on churches with false doctrine, I see that in many I've visited as well. But as far a Deborah, this is how I see it. Gods Will was not for women to be in leadership over men. Here is just a little of the information I find that I truly agree with. Even today you can see it sometimes in families where the man is either not present, or, not willing to take the lead. In these cases yes, God will allow a woman to take the lead. But it is because of sin, not because of His Plan.

God bless, in Christ, denise

The foremost Bible example of a woman leader is DEBORAH. Why did God make Deborah a judge in Israel (Jud. 4:4-5)? The answer is not difficult. The men in Deborah’s day were very weak and cowardly. This is seen in the fact that Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. The woman had to remind him that God had said it is time to fight; the woman had to encourage and challenge him to go; yea, the woman had to go with him!

“And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go” (Jud. 4:8).
Deborah clearly realized that this was not right nor natural, and she told Barak it would not result in his honor. “And she said, I will surely go with thee; notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; FOR THE LORD SHALL SELL SISERA INTO THE HAND OF A WOMAN...” (Jud. 4:9).
Obviously it was a period in Israel’s history during which God could find no man to do His will, so He used a brave, willing woman. We can praise God for women like Deborah who are willing to be strong when the men are weak. This has often happened, both in secular and in church history.
The problem in Deborah’s day was spiritual apostasy. When God’s people turn away from Him, He renders men powerless against their enemies and removes wisdom from their hearts. It is a judgment upon apostate people. We can see this very thing today in apostate North America and Europe. In general the leaders are weak and seem entirely lacking even in common sense. They cannot control their little children and women rule over them (compare Is. 3:12). This is God’s judgment because of the apostate condition of professing Christians. In Deborah’s day Israel was in bondage to their enemies only because of their apostasy from the true God and His Scriptures (Jud. 4:1-2). This was why the men were so weak. God had removed their power as He did from sinful Samson.

“Therefore the flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong shall not strengthen his force, neither shall the mighty deliver himself. ... And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, saith the Lord” (Amos 2:14-15).
Someone might ask, “If God called Deborah to judge in Israel of old, perhaps He would call a woman to lead in a church today?” This cannot be so, because God’s Word has expressly forbidden the woman to teach or usurp authority over men in the churches (1 Timothy 2:11-12). We must rightly divide the Word of Truth. We do not get our instructions for church work in the Old Testament; we get them from the New Testament. That is very basic.

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 05:25 AM
Men in leadership always want to regulate submission to women, only, but this is not so:

-Everyone is to submit to workers/laborers in the Gospel - I Corinthians 16: 15-16
-We are to submit to one another - Ephesians 5: 21
-Wives are to submit to their OWN husband, only - Ephesians 5: 22/Colossians 3: 18
-Submit to those who have “rule” over you - Hebrews 13: 17
-To God - James 4: 17
-To ordinances of government - I Peter 2: 13-17
-Younger people to Older people- I Peter 5: 5

Note: This submission applies as long as those in authority are in accordance with God, and His commandments…Acts 5: 29. A pastor once said that the Lord does not give authority to rebels, [those who are in rebellion against Him].


Women in Leadership in the Bible:

-Abigail, [wife of Nabal, who was a fool-she disobeyed him, and saved a people] - I Samuel 25: 2-39
-Deborah, [a judge over Israel] - Judges 4: 4-14
-Esther, [a queen] - Esther 4: 13-17
-Huldah, [a prophetess who prophesied to men] - II Kings 22: 14-20
-Priscilla, [who ministered with her husband equally] - Acts 2: 17-18; 18: 2, 18, 24-28; 21: 9/I Corinthians 16: 19 - she didn’t lose her identity, or her ministry.
-Phoebe, [a woman in ministry who Paul told others to assist] - Romans 16: 1-2

Queen Vashti was a special case, because she rebelled against her husband’s command, the concern was that her “spirit” would pass down to all the women under her…Esther 1: 17-19

However, this is true with male leaders also; Psalms 133: 2, Isaiah 24: 2, Jeremiah 5: 30-31, Hosea 4: 9.

Attributes of a Godly Woman:

-Gentle and Quiet Spirit - I Peter 3:4
-Soft answers in situations of strife - Proverbs 15: 1
-Quieted Soul [maturity] - Psalm 131: 2
-Brings favor from the Lord - Proverbs 18: 22 [satisfy a debt, pardon, reconcile self].

A Woman of God is Valuable, [Proverbs 31:11-31]:

-trustworthy…v.11
-does good, not evil…v.12
-servant/serves…v.13
-diligent, [attentive and persistent]…v.14
-industrious, [hard-working]…v.15
-administrative…v.16
-athletic…v.17
-industrious…v.18, 19
-generous…v.20
-supplement, [to improve the whole]…v.21, 22
-respectful…v. 23
-productive, [having favorable, useful, or positive results]…v.24
-dignity…v.25
-wise/kind…v.26
-protective…v.27
-honored/respected by family members…v.28
-fruitful…v.29-31

Note: There are many attributes of a godly woman than to just submit, or to just sit down, and be quiet, or to just teach children.

“Issues”, and Hindrances:

A- For Women:

-Lack of support/acceptance from male counterparts in some churches.
-Sometimes women try to be like a man in ministry in order to be successful.
-When you are not received:
*Check timing/seasons to make sure it is not God holding us back for His own season.
*Realize that “truth” is not always readily received at first;
Matthew 5: 10-12/Matthew 10: 22-26/Luke 21: 12-19/John 15: 20.
*Forgive those who abandon, and reject us; Mark 11: 25-26/Luke 11: 4/Luke 17: 3-4/Colossians 3: 12-15...steps to forgiveness.

B- For Men:

-Jealousy – some men in leadership are intimidated
-Insecurities over women in positions
-Controlling Spirits/Demonic Influences
-Some do not understand/obey scriptures, believing, and teaching what they have been taught - Romans 16: 1-5; Philippians 4:3.

Erroneous Teachings - I Timothy 2: 11-12/I Corinthians 14: 34-35:

I wanted to elaborate a bit on the erroneous teachings, which are used to keep women from fulfilling their God-given call in the Body of Christ.

Often these two scriptures are quoted, but if we were to “rightly divide” the scriptures, we would see that Paul couldn’t have meant what some think he means by this scriptures. ..

“Let a woman LEARN in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have, [USURP], authority, over a man, but to be in silence”…I Timothy 2: 11-12.

-Learn in silence, key word is “learn”.
-“Usurp” means to dominant, act of one’s self, take possession of by force, to seize or hold authority without legal right.

“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive as the LAW also says. And if they want to LEARN something, let them ask THEIR own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak at church”…I Corinthians 14: 34-35.

-When learning, they should be taught by their husbands at home.
-This is in regards to disorderly questions during teachings, see v. 33.
-Paul describes the orderly way a woman should speak in I Cor. 11: 5, we need a covering..
-We are not under the law, anymore…Romans 6:14; 7:6; Galatians 2: 16; 3:10; 5: 18.

If Paul meant that women should not minister, then he was hypocritical because he also said women in ministry should be supported, [Philippians 4: 3]. Also, Timothy learned his “faith” from his mom, and grandma, and women were “called” to the same lifestyle as men.

Christ gave women a place in ministry, and the church:

-Joel 2:28 - all flesh, your daughters…
-Acts 2: 17-18 - all flesh, your daughters…
-Galatians 3: 26-28 - neither male nor female…
-Matt. 27: 54-56, Mark 15:40, Luke 23:55, and Luke 24: 1, 10, 22-24 – women followed Jesus although the men deserted Him.

Note: Jesus came during a time when women were thought of as less than a dog, however in every case when men tried to regulate women back into the place men had put them, Jesus brought healing, and deliverance, even elevation. Search the scriptures: Matt. 9: 20-22, Matt. 15: 22-28, Matt. 26: 10-13, Mark 7: 25-30, Luke 7: 39-50, John 8: 3- 11, [just to name a few].

Demonic Influences:

-Satan has always hated the woman because her seed will bruise his head, so of course he would want to close our mouth - Genesis 3: 1, 15.
-Anti-Christ “spirit” has no respect for women - Daniel 11: 37 [desire - see as precious]

Secret Weapon:

-If we ever get on one accord, this world would see a power of God that has never been seen before except on the day of Pentecost - Genesis 11: 6.

To be con't...

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 05:27 AM
Marriage Myths: [which perpetuate the oppression of women]:

Let’s break these teachings down and look at each one individually:

1-the woman caused the fall of mankind by eating the fruit…
2-the husband is to dominate the wife...
3-the wife has a natural proclivity to try to rule her husband…
4-they are to both “leave father and mother” …
5-we have been taught that only the wife has to submit…

“The woman caused the fall of mankind by eating the fruit”…first of all, the Lord never gave the commandment not to eat of the tree of good and evil to the woman, He gave it to the man before the woman was created…Genesis 2: 15-18. In verse 16, the Lord commanded the man, and afterwards He said it was not good that man should be alone.

The woman was nowhere around when the commandment was given. Also, nowhere in scripture does the Lord attribute the fall of mankind to Eve, only to Adam…Romans 5: 12, 18-19, and I Corinthians 15: 21-22. Scripture teaches that Eve was deceived…I Timothy 2: 14, but Adam disobeyed…Romans 5: 19. So Eve has gotten a “bad rap” for generations.

“The husband is to dominate the wife”…Now in order to completely understand this scripture…Genesis 3: 16, we must look at the original meaning of the word “rule”. The Hebrew word rule means to govern- [to direct, influence, guide], to lead, but it also means to shepherd, to be first in rank.

The husband is to be a servant-leader, as well as, the first in rank, in the marriage. His role is one of governing, guiding, directing, having influence, and shepherding his wife, and family. There is nothing in theses definition that suggests domination. Also, with the privilege of leadership comes responsibility, which we will see in I Corinthians.

In order to fully understand this scripture, we have to couple Genesis 3: 16 with I Corinthians 11: 4-6…where we are told the man is the “head“, of the woman, and her “covering”. Now, we have taken this word “head” to mean leadership, but that is not quite accurate in this scripture. The actual definition in the Greek means “the part most readily taken hold of, or seized as in battle”. This word actually means first line of defense.

Then the word “covering” in this scripture means “to wholly/completely cover, conceal, protect, or hide…to be covered daily by relationship or joining“. The Lord has ordained for women to have a natural male covering in this earth realm, to symbolize the covering authority set up by God. But remember the word “covering” also means to hide, [as a shield]. So part of the husband’s covering is to protect her, as well as, to govern, and shepherd her.

These scriptures have nothing to do with husbands dominating their wives, or wives being so incompetent that they shouldn’t have any involvement in the making of decisions in a marriage. They were both created to dominate, but not each other.

“The wife has a natural proclivity to try to rule her husband”… This is the most damaging “myth” as I see it, because it causes division. Genesis 3:16 doesn’t appear to say this at all, and even in a stretch, I couldn’t see how anyone came to believe that this scripture is saying that a woman would desire to rule men, or her husband.

Also, when I looked up the original interpretation, the definition was completely different from what I had been taught, so at first, I couldn’t figure out where it came from. Then I heard something on the radio that helped me see the confusion.

A pastor was quoting Genesis 3: 16, and he translated the definition of the word desire from the Arabic, when it is not from that language, but should be translated from the Hebrew/Chaldean!!!

The Hebrew word desire in Genesis 3:16 means “to long, to crave, to stretch out after, to delight in”, [which is also similar to the definition for worship], but it also means to choose. The Lord said a wife’s desire, [longing, craving, stretching out for, choosing], will be for her husband, in a sense, her “worship” will be for her husband. This is why Paul could tell wives in Ephesians 5: 22, submit as unto the Lord, and in I Peter 3: 6...calling him lord. According to God, a wife’s desire toward her husband should be second only to her worship of Him.

“They are to both leave father and mother” …This is not what the scripture teaches. Genesis 2: 24 reads…“Therefore shall a man leave his father, and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they two shall become one flesh. [Also in Matthew 19: 5, and Mark 10: 7-8]. First of all, the scripture is gender specific, [the references to “man”, and “his”], and we know this because a woman cannot have a wife, she is the wife.

The purpose of this separation is loyalty, the man cannot have anyone over him any longer except the Lord, , so he can [I]properly lead his family. Also, the wife has to be able to take her proper place in her own family, and with her own children, [because of the wife’s desire for her husband according to Genesis 3: 16, generally there is not a problem with her loyalties to her immediate family].

How many have disobeyed this scripture? How many times do we have mothers running their son’s household, and husbands putting their mother, and her advice before that of their wives? How many times have wives separated from their parents, while the husband has incorporated their mother into the marriage. Out of order…people…poor foundation, which will crumble.

“We have been taught that only the wife has to submit” … Scripture teaches that ultimately the husband does make the final decisions in the family, and if the wife disagrees then her stance should be one of submission. Scripture also teaches that we are to “submit one to another”…Ephesians 5: 21.

We should also understand what the definition of submission is, it means to yield. Submitting does not mean that one cannot voice an opposing, or different opinion in a situation. It means in the case of varying views, one person yields to the authority of another, allowing his view to prevail, without conflict. Also, no one can force another person to submit, because then it is not submission, but oppression. Submission is voluntary…and should be equally shared. No one is absolutely correct all the time, and this is where humility comes into place in a marriage.

In the beginning, the Lord told the man and the woman; to be fruitful, to multiply, to subdue, and gave the man, and the woman dominion, and said it was very good. They were equal in their positions…in the beginning, and this basis is what makes the teachings that are based on something otherwise invalid in dealing with Christian marriages.

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 05:35 AM
as women, to be in leadership roles, if there are Godly men to fill them.

I am not disagreeing on churches with false doctrine, I see that in many I've visited as well. But as far a Deborah, this is how I see it. Gods Will was not for women to be in leadership over men. Here is just a little of the information I find that I truly agree with. Even today you can see it sometimes in families where the man is either not present, or, not willing to take the lead. In these cases yes, God will allow a woman to take the lead. But it is because of sin, not because of His Plan.

God bless, in Christ, denise

The foremost Bible example of a woman leader is DEBORAH. Why did God make Deborah a judge in Israel (Jud. 4:4-5)? The answer is not difficult. The men in Deborah’s day were very weak and cowardly. This is seen in the fact that Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. The woman had to remind him that God had said it is time to fight; the woman had to encourage and challenge him to go; yea, the woman had to go with him!

“And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go” (Jud. 4:8).
Deborah clearly realized that this was not right nor natural, and she told Barak it would not result in his honor. “And she said, I will surely go with thee; notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; FOR THE LORD SHALL SELL SISERA INTO THE HAND OF A WOMAN...” (Jud. 4:9).
Obviously it was a period in Israel’s history during which God could find no man to do His will, so He used a brave, willing woman. We can praise God for women like Deborah who are willing to be strong when the men are weak. This has often happened, both in secular and in church history.
The problem in Deborah’s day was spiritual apostasy. When God’s people turn away from Him, He renders men powerless against their enemies and removes wisdom from their hearts. It is a judgment upon apostate people. We can see this very thing today in apostate North America and Europe. In general the leaders are weak and seem entirely lacking even in common sense. They cannot control their little children and women rule over them (compare Is. 3:12). This is God’s judgment because of the apostate condition of professing Christians. In Deborah’s day Israel was in bondage to their enemies only because of their apostasy from the true God and His Scriptures (Jud. 4:1-2). This was why the men were so weak. God had removed their power as He did from sinful Samson.

“Therefore the flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong shall not strengthen his force, neither shall the mighty deliver himself. ... And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, saith the Lord” (Amos 2:14-15).
Someone might ask, “If God called Deborah to judge in Israel of old, perhaps He would call a woman to lead in a church today?” This cannot be so, because God’s Word has expressly forbidden the woman to teach or usurp authority over men in the churches (1 Timothy 2:11-12). We must rightly divide the Word of Truth. We do not get our instructions for church work in the Old Testament; we get them from the New Testament. That is very basic.

Women are not to "usurp" authority over a man. Usurp means to force authority, or take authority over a man, however she can operate in authority that a man has given to her, as Deborah did. She was a judge over Israel, and led a war even though she wanted a man to do it but he refused...Judges 4: 1-9.

I do not agree with woman being the final authority in a church because of the protection factor, [Lord put men as protectors], however I do believe she can co-pastor with her husband].

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 05:41 AM
Okay - I went back to look for it. I remember now that I didn't reply back because I felt that you had said what you wanted to say on the subject and I said what I felt I needed to say on the subject. Some posts, IMO, are kind of "unanswerable" if both sides have stated their opinions fully. In my experience, continuing back and forth can cause one side or both to just turn the whole thing into an argument. In forums such as this, I try to avoid endless bantering back and forth as much as possible. :)

Does that make sense?

This is my stance from now on, just say what has to be said and allow the Holy Ghost to do the rest. Spiritual things cannot always be explained, they must be revealed. If a person sincerely wants truth, they will get it.

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 05:56 AM
:hug: First all hugs to everyone! I have read this thread and I am sorry to see such hurt feelings over the office of Pastor. What is wrong with women and men having different functions/roles in a church? I for one am glad that a woman is not in our pulpit at our church (yes, I am a woman). I have no problem with men only being a Pastor of a church. I also believe this is the only position women should not serve in. The reference in 1 Tim 2:12 directly refers to preaching in my humble opinion. I am allowed to teach/disciple in Bible Studies, serve, and fill leadership positions in the church as long as it does not include the office of Pastor. Nor am I angry that I am excluded from that role.

Obviously, even women are not going to come to agreement on this issue. Guess what, that is okay as long as we still can love and have fellowship together because what is most important is our faith in our returning King, Jesus Christ.

:kiss: In God's Amazing Grace!

I agree, Sis...

I believe everyone still loves one another, it is just that people feel passionately about how they feel, and at times get caught up in that. Once they calm down, they settle back into the love.

The stance of the OP is a "challenge" only to those of us who have a "call" on our lives because he is saying that we are in error, disobedience, and/or rebellion against the Lord. Also, his attitude is somewhat disrespectful to some of the women, which does not help his "case", at all...:rofl:!

Personally, I don't care because "a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with just an argument". I know the Lord has called me, and those who cannot receive that are not the ones He is sending me to minister to, Bless God!

I was teaching a Bible study in a sister's home, [I told them I only wanted to teach women], and they would go back and discuss the lessons with their husbands, showing them the handouts with scriptures. Their husbands stated they wanted to come to the Bible studies and learn as well, [what was I to say? No...this was not being done under a bushel], so I said yes! I never wanted to minister to men, however when they request for me, I do as the Lord has called me to.

Then again, I do not waste God's time trying to minister to anyone that does not want to receive.:hmm:

Grace and Peace...

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 06:33 AM
prejudice towards men?? "men in leadership always"??? :hmm: This in itself is a totally false statement.

Yes, I know God has many things for women to do in service to Him. I always love reading about the Proverbs 31 woman. Gods submission(meaning of)is not a "bad" thing. It is a "good" thing for us to do or He wouldn't have written it for us. He always knows what is best for His children.

I always love reading about the Proverbs 31 woman. Submitting is not just for women either. Men are to submit also. I haven't read every thread here and it's too late for me, tonight, to get deeper into it. Maybe tomorrow if I have time. For me, reading all that you have here still does not do away with Gods Words on our roles in the Body of Christ. Again, I haven't read all of the topic replies so I will try to do that if I decide to post further on this topic:)

God bless, in Christ, denise



Men in leadership always want to regulate submission to women, only, but this is not so:

-Everyone is to submit to workers/laborers in the Gospel - I Corinthians 16: 15-16
-We are to submit to one another - Ephesians 5: 21
-Wives are to submit to their OWN husband, only - Ephesians 5: 22/Colossians 3: 18
-Submit to those who have “rule” over you - Hebrews 13: 17
-To God - James 4: 17
-To ordinances of government - I Peter 2: 13-17
-Younger people to Older people- I Peter 5: 5

Note: This submission applies as long as those in authority are in accordance with God, and His commandments…Acts 5: 29. A pastor once said that the Lord does not give authority to rebels, [those who are in rebellion against Him].


Women in Leadership in the Bible:

-Abigail, [wife of Nabal, who was a fool-she disobeyed him, and saved a people] - I Samuel 25: 2-39
-Deborah, [a judge over Israel] - Judges 4: 4-14
-Esther, [a queen] - Esther 4: 13-17
-Huldah, [a prophetess who prophesied to men] - II Kings 22: 14-20
-Priscilla, [who ministered with her husband equally] - Acts 2: 17-18; 18: 2, 18, 24-28; 21: 9/I Corinthians 16: 19 - she didn’t lose her identity, or her ministry.
-Phoebe, [a woman in ministry who Paul told others to assist] - Romans 16: 1-2

Queen Vashti was a special case, because she rebelled against her husband’s command, the concern was that her “spirit” would pass down to all the women under her…Esther 1: 17-19

However, this is true with male leaders also; Psalms 133: 2, Isaiah 24: 2, Jeremiah 5: 30-31, Hosea 4: 9.

Attributes of a Godly Woman:

-Gentle and Quiet Spirit - I Peter 3:4
-Soft answers in situations of strife - Proverbs 15: 1
-Quieted Soul [maturity] - Psalm 131: 2
-Brings favor from the Lord - Proverbs 18: 22 [satisfy a debt, pardon, reconcile self].

A Woman of God is Valuable, [Proverbs 31:11-31]:

-trustworthy…v.11
-does good, not evil…v.12
-servant/serves…v.13
-diligent, [attentive and persistent]…v.14
-industrious, [hard-working]…v.15
-administrative…v.16
-athletic…v.17
-industrious…v.18, 19
-generous…v.20
-supplement, [to improve the whole]…v.21, 22
-respectful…v. 23
-productive, [having favorable, useful, or positive results]…v.24
-dignity…v.25
-wise/kind…v.26
-protective…v.27
-honored/respected by family members…v.28
-fruitful…v.29-31

Note: There are many attributes of a godly woman than to just submit, or to just sit down, and be quiet, or to just teach children.

“Issues”, and Hindrances:

A- For Women:

-Lack of support/acceptance from male counterparts in some churches.
-Sometimes women try to be like a man in ministry in order to be successful.
-When you are not received:
*Check timing/seasons to make sure it is not God holding us back for His own season.
*Realize that “truth” is not always readily received at first;
Matthew 5: 10-12/Matthew 10: 22-26/Luke 21: 12-19/John 15: 20.
*Forgive those who abandon, and reject us; Mark 11: 25-26/Luke 11: 4/Luke 17: 3-4/Colossians 3: 12-15...steps to forgiveness.

B- For Men:

-Jealousy – some men in leadership are intimidated
-Insecurities over women in positions
-Controlling Spirits/Demonic Influences
-Some do not understand/obey scriptures, believing, and teaching what they have been taught - Romans 16: 1-5; Philippians 4:3.

Erroneous Teachings - I Timothy 2: 11-12/I Corinthians 14: 34-35:

I wanted to elaborate a bit on the erroneous teachings, which are used to keep women from fulfilling their God-given call in the Body of Christ.

Often these two scriptures are quoted, but if we were to “rightly divide” the scriptures, we would see that Paul couldn’t have meant what some think he means by this scriptures. ..

“Let a woman LEARN in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have, [USURP], authority, over a man, but to be in silence”…I Timothy 2: 11-12.

-Learn in silence, key word is “learn”.
-“Usurp” means to dominant, act of one’s self, take possession of by force, to seize or hold authority without legal right.

“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive as the LAW also says. And if they want to LEARN something, let them ask THEIR own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak at church”…I Corinthians 14: 34-35.

-When learning, they should be taught by their husbands at home.
-This is in regards to disorderly questions during teachings, see v. 33.
-Paul describes the orderly way a woman should speak in I Cor. 11: 5, we need a covering..
-We are not under the law, anymore…Romans 6:14; 7:6; Galatians 2: 16; 3:10; 5: 18.

If Paul meant that women should not minister, then he was hypocritical because he also said women in ministry should be supported, [Philippians 4: 3]. Also, Timothy learned his “faith” from his mom, and grandma, and women were “called” to the same lifestyle as men.

Christ gave women a place in ministry, and the church:

-Joel 2:28 - all flesh, your daughters…
-Acts 2: 17-18 - all flesh, your daughters…
-Galatians 3: 26-28 - neither male nor female…
-Matt. 27: 54-56, Mark 15:40, Luke 23:55, and Luke 24: 1, 10, 22-24 – women followed Jesus although the men deserted Him.

Note: Jesus came during a time when women were thought of as less than a dog, however in every case when men tried to regulate women back into the place men had put them, Jesus brought healing, and deliverance, even elevation. Search the scriptures: Matt. 9: 20-22, Matt. 15: 22-28, Matt. 26: 10-13, Mark 7: 25-30, Luke 7: 39-50, John 8: 3- 11, [just to name a few].

Demonic Influences:

-Satan has always hated the woman because her seed will bruise his head, so of course he would want to close our mouth - Genesis 3: 1, 15.
-Anti-Christ “spirit” has no respect for women - Daniel 11: 37 [desire - see as precious]

Secret Weapon:

-If we ever get on one accord, this world would see a power of God that has never been seen before except on the day of Pentecost - Genesis 11: 6.

To be con't...

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 07:36 AM
prejudice towards men?? "men in leadership always"??? :hmm: This in itself is a totally false statement.
God bless, in Christ, denise

I have no idea what you are talking about???:confused You must have me confused with the OP who is definitely prejudice against women.

I don't think you have read anything that I have said...:o

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 07:42 AM
I'm neither Liberal nor Charismatic, and my ears don't itch..well not most of the time ;) lol. Just a Christian following the Bible to the best of my understanding.

Being a "Liberal, or Charismatic" is not an insult, [although I hate being labelled as well so I understand...LOL]!!! Where the Spirit is the Lord is their is LIBERTY!!! Praise God...so I guess the Holy Ghost is a "liberal" as well...:rofl:

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 07:52 AM
Christ is not a man, Christ is God. Do you really believe that Christ is a man and died as such and has no divine powers because he was only a man?

When Christ walked this earth, He walked as a man, leaving His deity to be in flesh...

Philippians 2:5-11 (New King James Version)

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Hebrews 4:14-15 (New King James Version)

14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

James 1:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=1&verse=13&version=50&context=verse)

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

That is just to list a few...however, I cannot teach you anything because I am a woman...smh!

The Parson
Sep 16th 2008, 03:10 PM
When Christ walked this earth, He walked as a man, leaving His deity to be in flesh...

Philippians 2:5-11 (New King James Version)

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Hebrews 4:14-15 (New King James Version)

14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

James 1:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=1&verse=13&version=50&context=verse)

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

That is just to list a few...however, I cannot teach you anything because I am a woman...smh!Sarchasm is not becoming ma'am. And it isn't the way we should deal with brothers and sisters either.

And in no way do these verses say that the Savior left His Deity behind in heaven.


Taking on the FORM does not say leaving behind His Diety
Coming in the LIKENESSS does not say leaving behind His Diety
And being tempted was the humanity side of the Lord who became flesh. That doesn't say He wasn't still God. As a matter of fact, one of the names of the Lord Jesus Christ as He was called, is Emmanuel which means "God With Us"

Collosians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Now, this is to all in this thread. Last Warning. This thread continues to get nasty, IT WILL BE SHUT DOWN. No if's, ands, or buts about it.

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 03:10 PM
Women are not to "usurp" authority over a man. Usurp means to force authority, or take authority over a man, however she can operate in authority that a man has given to her, as Deborah did. She was a judge over Israel, and led a war even though she wanted a man to do it but he refused...Judges 4: 1-9.

I do not agree with woman being the final authority in a church because of the protection factor, [Lord put men as protectors], however I do believe she can co-pastor with her husband].

Your opinion here is not really different than mine so I need to re-read your post as I must have been mistaken about "how you see women in leadership". However, my observation of your statement about "men always" I will stand on. Also, I don't see where you are coming from with a statement like "nope"? Are you saying you disagree with me or you do not? Speaking online is very difficult in that I sometimes can't decipher a persons true intentions in their writings. Nor can I always get mine across rightly.

After reading further on Deborah:) when the battle was over, she also sang praises to God with Barak because the "princes" of Israel "lead". Her heart was for Gods Will which is indeed for the men of the Body of Christ to lead. Woman, from the beginning, were made by God as a helpmeet for man. So that sums it up very clearly for this "ordinary" child of God:) I don't agree with women calling themselves, or a church giving them the title of Pastor, co or otherwise. I have to read further on this as far as "titles", what God would have us "call ourselves" or not call ourselves. I am watchful of church doctrine being reconcilable to the bible so when I hear a women introduce herself as pastor, and I've never heard one call herself "co" pastor, only pastor, my first thought is, ok, what else might be man-made here. Co-pastor again, is not in the bible, helpmeet/wife is.

God bless your day, in Christ, denise

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 04:07 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about???:confused You must have me confused with the OP who is definitely prejudice against women.

I don't think you have read anything that I have said...:o

why you make a comment like "I don't think you've read anything I said". This just isn't loving conversation. Here is your "men" comment I was referring to:

Originally Posted by Lady Ashanti http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1789617#post1789617)
Men in leadership always want to regulate submission to women, only, but this is not so:



In Christ, denise

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 05:34 PM
So that is who you is.;)


Merton.

But what came to mind when I read about Gods Callings. We are called by God, absolutely! Imo, though, if our calling is not reconcilable to the Bible, it is not from God. That's all I wanted to say, not about you or anyone. Just for us all as christians to continue looking to His infallible authority(2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

There is a "movement" that is as far as I can tell, saying that not "all" scripture is for "all" people. I disagree with that but that's another topic:)

love to all, ysic, denise;)

Lo-Lo
Sep 16th 2008, 06:03 PM
I was teaching a Bible study in a sister's home, [I told them I only wanted to teach women], and they would go back and discuss the lessons with their husbands, showing them the handouts with scriptures. Their husbands stated they wanted to come to the Bible studies and learn as well, [what was I to say? No...this was not being done under a bushel], so I said yes! I never wanted to minister to men, however when they request for me, I do as the Lord has called me to.

Then again, I do not waste God's time trying to minister to anyone that does not want to receive.:hmm:

Grace and Peace...

I would like to comment on your Bible Study. Are you preaching or discipling? Two different things in my opinion. We are all to disciple which is a given to all christians. So, I see nothing wrong on this level of your Bible Studies. But if you are leading this group as a home church and directing their paths as a church body then I have to disagree- that would be a position for a man to hold. I just wanted to clarify my position so that I am not misunderstood. I believe God made this decision for the office of Pastor for our benefit and not as a way of showing women that they are inferior. To submit does not mean a man is the "boss" of me. God is trying to convey Godly Teamwork not a way to separate us!

In God's Amazing Grace!

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 06:11 PM
Your opinion here is not really different than mine so I need to re-read your post as I must have been mistaken about "how you see women in leadership". However, my observation of your statement about "men always" I will stand on. Also, I don't see where you are coming from with a statement like "nope"? Are you saying you disagree with me or you do not? Speaking online is very difficult in that I sometimes can't decipher a persons true intentions in their writings. Nor can I always get mine across rightly.

After reading further on Deborah:) when the battle was over, she also sang praises to God with Barak because the "princes" of Israel "lead". Her heart was for Gods Will which is indeed for the men of the Body of Christ to lead. Woman, from the beginning, were made by God as a helpmeet for man. So that sums it up very clearly for this "ordinary" child of God:) I don't agree with women calling themselves, or a church giving them the title of Pastor, co or otherwise. I have to read further on this as far as "titles", what God would have us "call ourselves" or not call ourselves. I am watchful of church doctrine being reconcilable to the bible so when I hear a women introduce herself as pastor, and I've never heard one call herself "co" pastor, only pastor, my first thought is, ok, what else might be man-made here. Co-pastor again, is not in the bible, helpmeet/wife is.

God bless your day, in Christ, denise

Sis...I "aint" mad at you, or anyone else in here...

Neither is deaconess found in the Bible but it has been used for years.

There are some aspects of what you have said in yoru posts that I beg to differ, however the Lord will reveal His truth to all who truly desire it, [whether you, or me], and that is all that is important.

I will also answer your next post in here...

Why is it that as soon as an error, or something negative in men is spoken on one is perceived as "having issues with men", or "male bashing"? However you have not said this one time to the man that is plainly "bashing" women in this thread?

I have been surrounded by men in my family who appreciate, protected, and have been a blessing to me; my father, my brothers, my spiritual dad, and "brothers" outside of my family. I have also had to rid my life of men who are abusive, disrespectful, demeaning, and ungodly. I have seen men from both aspects, and speak from that stance, that there is good and evil men, as well as women.

Since men have been the leaders, [for the most part], in our churches and have established doctrines according to their beliefs, [which do not always line up with the word of God], then generally speaking "it is men in leadership" who have established this doctrine for their own purposes. This is what is meant by my statement...

Sis...the reason I am discussing this at all is to aid in the confidence in God for those women that are called who may get shaken by the words of the OP. It matters little to me what is said regarding people not believing that the Lord "calls" women as well as men because the Lord made me free years ago from this doctrine with this revelation...

As I was praying about this issue, He told me that it doesn't matter if people believe that I am "called" or not because He was using me even when I did not believe", [Glory to God], then He backed it up with this scripture...

Romans 3:3-4 (King James Version):

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Be Blessed...

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 06:15 PM
I would like to comment on your Bible Study. Are you preaching or discipling? Two different things in my opinion. We are all to disciple which is a given to all christians. So, I see nothing wrong on this level of your Bible Studies. But if you are leading this group as a home church and directing their paths as a church body then I have to disagree- that would be a position for a man to hold. I just wanted to clarify my position so that I am not misunderstood. I believe God made this decision for the office of Pastor for our benefit and not as a way of showing women that they are inferior. To submit does not mean a man is the "boss" of me. God is trying to convey Godly Teamwork not a way to separate us!

In God's Amazing Grace!

Whenever a man wants to know things from me about God's Word, I try to always remember to point him to a Godly man in authority. I think as humans, it is so easy to be insnared in satans little traps. Like, well, he asked me. And it is ok they ask, it's great, but as a Godly woman, I believe I am to lead him alright, right into the introduction to a man of God to talk with:)

God bless, your sister in Christ, denise

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 06:19 PM
Sarchasm is not becoming ma'am. And it isn't the way we should deal with brothers and sisters either.

Now, this is to all in this thread. Last Warning. This thread continues to get nasty, IT WILL BE SHUT DOWN. No if's, ands, or buts about it.

Brother...it was not my intention to be "sarcastic", although I could see you taking it that way since you cannot see my face, or hear my voice.

I apologize to anyone who took any of my comments in that way, I was just trying to make light of a situation that I could see was getting a little "heated".:pp

I don't get upset when one disagrees with me, I just post the truth of the Word of God, and and "keep it moving". The Lord will sort it out... Paul said one plants, another waters, and the Lord gives the increase...I Cor. 3: 6-7.

Now, we may not agree today, however the Lord will confirm the truth of His Word and that is all that matters.

Be Blessed...

PS...

Also, I beg to differ, and let me try to explain...

I know Jesus was God, however He choose to experience His life on this earth "in flesh", as a man without operating from His Diety so He could identify with us-experience temptation, overcome sin for us, and empower us by the Holy Ghost, [Jesus did no miracles until He was empowered by the Holy Ghost, nor was he tempted until then, either]. He was able to defeat Satan at Calvary because it was illegal for the enemy to take one to hell who had not sinned, [yielded to his influences], and had no sin nature thru birth. Jesus also showed us that it is possible to overcome sin in this flesh through the power of the Holy Ghost, because that is what He did.

John 1:14-18 (New King James Version)

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-26055e)] of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-26057f)] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 06:36 PM
Sis...I "aint" mad at you, or anyone else in here...

Neither is deaconess found in the Bible but it has been used for years.

There are some aspects of what you have said in yoru posts that I beg to differ, however the Lord will reveal His truth to all who truly desire it, [whether you, or me], and that is all that is important.

I will also answer your next post in here...

Why is it that as soon as an error, or something negative in men is spoken on one is perceived as "having issues with men", or "male bashing"? However you have not said this one time to the man that is plainly "bashing" women in this thread?

I have been surrounded by men in my family who appreciate, protected, and have been a blessing to me; my father, my brothers, my spiritual dad, and "brothers" outside of my family. I have also had to rid my life of men who are abusive, disrespectful, demeaning, and ungodly. I have seen men from both aspects, and speak from that stance, that there is good and evil men, as well as women.

Since men have been the leaders, [for the most part], in our churches and have established doctrines according to their beliefs, [which do not always line up with the word of God], then generally speaking "it is men in leadership" who have established this doctrine for their own purposes. This is what is meant by my statement...

Sis...the reason I am discussing this at all is to aid in the confidence in God for those women that are called who may get shaken by the words of the OP. It matters little to me what is said regarding people not believing that the Lord "calls" women as well as men because the Lord made me free years ago from this doctrine with this revelation...

As I was praying about this issue, He told me that it doesn't matter if people believe that I am "called" or not because He was using me even when I did not believe", [Glory to God], then He backed it up with this scripture...

Romans 3:3-4 (King James Version):

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Be Blessed...


Although being mad at ALL men because of what some do, did. Now that's not to say it's true, just your statement brought that to mind, again, the one on men "always". Hope you recall it this time. Don't want to go all over it again, and won't. You say you will answer my post but yet you start asking your own questions right after stating that. And you don't say that it was indeed a "mistake" that you said "men always". As far as the OP, I wasn't led to comment on his post. Yet. Maybe will be, maybe won't. Sometimes I see it as more important how we react to someones statements then their statement. Im done here as I see us not making any headway and I am not hearing God telling me to pursue this so God bless you in your debate(s). a sister in Christ, denise:)

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 07:01 PM
I would like to comment on your Bible Study. Are you preaching or discipling? Two different things in my opinion. We are all to disciple which is a given to all christians. So, I see nothing wrong on this level of your Bible Studies. But if you are leading this group as a home church and directing their paths as a church body then I have to disagree- that would be a position for a man to hold. I just wanted to clarify my position so that I am not misunderstood. I believe God made this decision for the office of Pastor for our benefit and not as a way of showing women that they are inferior. To submit does not mean a man is the "boss" of me. God is trying to convey Godly Teamwork not a way to separate us!

In God's Amazing Grace!

Sis...I never felt led to "pastor" a church as far as a building, however I do feel led to instruct God's people in the Word of God as far as teaching, and preaching, [which has been acknowledged by men, and women in leadership even before I believed], as the Lord leads whether to men, or women.

I am not hung up on positions, just on obedience to the Lord, and doing as the Lord instructs. Since there are more scriptures in the Bible that instruct women to minister to all than the one which tells women not to ever preach/teach men, [which I have also responded to according to study], then I believe it is being misinterpreted.

Allow me to explain this, I do not believe that because the Lord uses me to preach/teach to men at times that I am "over" them, just as I do not feel that I am "over" women. I just feel that, at times, we all know truths from God that another may not know so the Lord uses vessels to reveal His Word so we all can be on the same "page" in God.

Yes, the Lord established order for the sake of protection, and structure however when it comes to sowing His word, He has not put restrictions on who can proclaim it, or assigned that task to just one gender.

Acts 18:24-26 (King James Version)

24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

They both did, not just Aquila...

Be blessed...:pray:

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 07:02 PM
Sometimes I see it as more important how we react to someones statements then their statement. Im done here as I see us not making any headway and I am not hearing God telling me to pursue this so God bless you in your debate(s). a sister in Christ, denise:)

God Bless you, Sis...:hug:

Br. Barnabas
Sep 16th 2008, 07:31 PM
The point still remains, even if some don't like it, that some churches do allow women to hold the office of pastor, bishop, deacon, and preacher. If your church does not that if fine. If your church does that is fine too. The point still remains that some churchs allow it and some do not. While those whose church does not allow it may thing that the churches that do allow it are in error. The churches that do allow it, allow it for a very good reason. They have searched the Scriptures and have found that it is possible. The Holy Spirit has put something on some women's hearts and who are we to say that this guiding from the Holy Spirit is wrong? Different churches read the Scriptures differently, same as there are churches that believe in free will and other that believe in predestiation, it is a different of opinion on the Scriptures.

But who are we to put out the fire of the Holy Spirit when it burns? The words of Gamaliel come to me now. "For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." If these women are to preach then they will succed if not they will fail and it will be shown that it was not from God. I know many women who are preachers and pastors and I think that they do a fine job at preaching and teaching.

As I have also said before I have more confidence in women who are preaching then some men because I know that they have had to go through a lot more to get where they are then many men did. I know some men who are in seminary right now and because their denomination is so hard up for preachers they will get into a church without anyone examining him or his "calling" too closely. My fear is that he will end up hurting someone in the church and/or hurting the church as a whole, because of how he treats people now. But that is a different issue for a different time (and don't worry I plan on telling his comittee to exmaine him closer). But the point still stands that a woman in this position would be examined much more closely.

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 07:43 PM
The point still remains, even if some don't like it, that some churches do allow women to hold the office of pastor, bishop, deacon, and preacher. If your church does not that if fine. If your church does that is fine too. The point still remains that some churchs allow it and some do not. While those whose church does not allow it may thing that the churches that do allow it are in error. The churches that do allow it, allow it for a very good reason. They have searched the Scriptures and have found that it is possible. The Holy Spirit has put something on some women's hearts and who are we to say that this guiding from the Holy Spirit is wrong? Different churches read the Scriptures differently, same as there are churches that believe in free will and other that believe in predestiation, it is a different of opinion on the Scriptures.

But who are we to put out the fire of the Holy Spirit when it burns? The words of Gamaliel come to me now. "For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." If these women are to preach then they will succed if not they will fail and it will be shown that it was not from God. I know many women who are preachers and pastors and I think that they do a fine job at preaching and teaching.

As I have also said before I have more confidence in women who are preaching then some men because I know that they have had to go through a lot more to get where they are then many men did. I know some men who are in seminary right now and because their denomination is so hard up for preachers they will get into a church without anyone examining him or his "calling" too closely. My fear is that he will end up hurting someone in the church and/or hurting the church as a whole, because of how he treats people now. But that is a different issue for a different time (and don't worry I plan on telling his comittee to exmaine him closer). But the point still stands that a woman in this position would be examined much more closely.

Very well put, and I will leave it at your comment unless someone asks me something...Be blessed:hug:!!!

The Parson
Sep 16th 2008, 10:16 PM
Brother...it was not my intention to be "sarcastic", although I could see you taking it that way since you cannot see my face, or hear my voice.

I apologize to anyone who took any of my comments in that way, I was just trying to make light of a situation that I could see was getting a little "heated".:pp

I don't get upset when one disagrees with me, I just post the truth of the Word of God, and and "keep it moving". The Lord will sort it out... Paul said one plants, another waters, and the Lord gives the increase...I Cor. 3: 6-7.

Now, we may not agree today, however the Lord will confirm the truth of His Word and that is all that matters.

Be Blessed...Yes ma'am, I hear what you are saying. However sometimes our timing can be off... I rest assured though. Thank you.



PS...

Also, I beg to differ, and let me try to explain...

I know Jesus was God, however He choose to experience His life on this earth "in flesh", as a man without operating from His Diety so He could identify with us-experience temptation, overcome sin for us, and empower us by the Holy Ghost, [Jesus did no miracles until He was empowered by the Holy Ghost, nor was he tempted until then, either]. He was able to defeat Satan at Calvary because it was illegal for the enemy to take one to hell who had not sinned, [yielded to his influences], and had no sin nature thru birth. Jesus also showed us that it is possible to overcome sin in this flesh through the power of the Holy Ghost, because that is what He did.

John 1:14-18 (New King James Version)

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-26055e)] of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-26057f)] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.Again, there is no problem disagreeing with me. But forgive my simple understanding but became flesh still doesn't mean he stopped being God. Please reconsider what was said in Collosians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Now, correct me if I'm wrong dear lady, I've been known to be wrong from time to time. Dwelleth meaneth Dwelleth, doth it not?

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 10:35 PM
Although being mad at ALL men because of what some do, did. :)

Sis...when I said "I aint mad at you"...that is a slang term...:lol:...

Lady Ashanti
Sep 16th 2008, 10:40 PM
Yes ma'am, I hear what you are saying. However sometimes our timing can be off... I rest assured though. Thank you.

Again, there is no problem disagreeing with me. But forgive my simple understanding but became flesh still doesn't mean he stopped being God. Please reconsider what was said in Collosians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Now, correct me if I'm wrong dear lady, I've been known to be wrong from time to time. Dwelleth meaneth Dwelleth, doth it not?

Yes, it does...however "dwelleth" is present tense isn't it, and since this was written after the resurrection of Christ is it talking about when He walked the earth, or now that He is seated at the right hand of the Father?

It has aways been my understanding that He came as the "lamb", and now He is the Lion, the Ruling King....so His positioning, [for lack of a better word for it is difficult to explain the miracles of God], differed.

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 10:43 PM
God Bless you, Sis...:hug:

if you quote my writings, please include the whole quote? I hope you won't mind me asking. I just prefer it that way and I am not asking anything I do not do myself:) God bless and thank you in advance for considering my request, in Christ, denise:)

PS I do not believe it is a site rule, simply a personal favor I am asking:)

Oregongrown
Sep 16th 2008, 10:50 PM
Sis...when I said "I aint mad at you"...that is a slang term...:lol:... I learn something new every day.

denise:)

The Parson
Sep 17th 2008, 12:00 AM
Yes, it does...however "dwelleth" is present tense isn't it, and since this was written after the resurrection of Christ is it talking about when He walked the earth, or now that He is seated at the right hand of the Father?

It has aways been my understanding that He came as the "lamb", and now He is the Lion, the Ruling King....so His positioning, [for lack of a better word for it is difficult to explain the miracles of God], differed.Well, I've been said to be wrong from time to time but not this time ma'am and again call me simple but Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. So doesn't that mean that Jesus was and is and ever will be the same and an equal member of the Godhead?

It's interesting, but with each of these sets of verses comes a warning. In Collosians it was "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." and in Hebrews it was "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." Sorry, but I'm still not convinced. I guess I'm one of them subborn ones my friend.

And if we need a clearer statement from Jesus Himself, then consider Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

ConqueredbyLove
Sep 17th 2008, 12:23 AM
But forgive my simple understanding but became flesh still doesn't mean he stopped being God.

Amen! He was Son-of-Man, Son-of-God! And, oh how I love Him for that :hug: The God-Man!

ConqueredbyLove
Sep 17th 2008, 12:34 AM
It has aways been my understanding that He came as the "lamb", and now He is the Lion, the Ruling King.....

He still is the Lamb! Slain from the foundation of the world...


And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Revelation 5: 6-8



And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Revelation 21: 1-3

Lady Ashanti
Sep 17th 2008, 02:39 AM
Well, I've been said to be wrong from time to time but not this time ma'am and again call me simple but Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. So doesn't that mean that Jesus was and is and ever will be the same and an equal member of the Godhead?

It's interesting, but with each of these sets of verses comes a warning. In Collosians it was "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." and in Hebrews it was "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." Sorry, but I'm still not convinced. I guess I'm one of them subborn ones my friend.

And if we need a clearer statement from Jesus Himself, then consider Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Hey, it's all good...actually I was not trying to convince you, just expressing my beliefs on the verses...

Be blessed, and have a good night!!!

cdo
Sep 18th 2008, 04:54 AM
Women in Ministry

Whether this is or would be called " women in Ministry" or not makes really no difference.I serve in "The Children's Ministry" at Church. I have responsibilities in the Ministry over the children.With the time we spend with them they are learning about Jesus, which is called teaching.Another term of preaching.
I believe God gifts those in all things according to His purpose for Him, whatever the gift or calling is. I don't have a preference regarding a man or woman preaching as long as it "The Word of God" and scriptural.You never know the person from behind the pulpit.Only when his ways are discerned (like the real person away from Church.)


Just my 2 cents
in Christ, Darlene:hug: