PDA

View Full Version : What do you think about women Pastor's



The Preacher
Oct 17th 2008, 05:29 AM
Check out Melissa Scott's video feed and listen for an hour before you answer:

http://www.pastormelissascott.com/Looped_Video.asx

She has made me re evaluate my position

Buckeye Doug
Oct 17th 2008, 07:22 AM
Preacher,

It's 3:10 AM and I don't have an hour to listen, but Scripture is clear: the role of pastor is reserved to men.

I must "hit the hay" now. Have a good night/morning.

God bless. :sleeping:

Levin
Oct 17th 2008, 07:35 AM
First, a discussion of the two main positions:

1) Egalitarianism is the theology that both men and women were created equal before God, and thus they are able to hold the same positions in society and in the church. Male leadership is not considered normative or desirable; rather, “any subordination of women is contrary to God’s ideal, was caused by the fall of Adam and Eve, was reversed in the church through the sacrifice of Christ, but has been perpetuated by erroneous interpretations of scripture.”2 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286412sym) Christ is able to rescue the members of the church from this fallen state, so that men and women have equal standing and office in the church. “Teaching and leadership in the church and home rest in God’s bestowal of spiritual gifts upon individuals [sic] not upon male/female role distinctions.”3 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286413sym)

At first glance, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 may look like a hindering thorn in the side of Egalitarian theology. However, the scholars who rest on this side of the issue claim that the command in this verse is not to be universally accepted. Paul is writing to a 1st century, Ephesian church, and his instructions are for the situation found there; they do not apply to the role of women in ministry today. This is argued by both grammatical analysis and by the study of the background situation of this letter.

When the Greek grammar of these two passages is examined, the Egalitarian argument is that the verb for “do not permit” is not universal but territorial. “The Holy Spirit…led Paul to use a construction that describes his practice without making it permanently binding.”4 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286414sym) This is true because of the tense of the verb that Paul used. “The ongoing sense of the present tense Greek verb points to a restriction specific to the current situation at Ephesus.”5 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286415sym) So, then, while it may appear in many English translations as a universal prohibitation, Paul was in fact not meaning to have his command followed in all churches. “Although, then, the prohibition may appear to be universally applicable to women, it is in fact meant for a specific group of women among the recipients of the letter.”6 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286416sym) The grammar also prevents a Complementarian view that women are only allowed to teach in private, but not in public. “The harmonistic distinction sometimes drawn between ‘private’ teaching (permitted) and ‘public’ teaching (forbidden) is surely anachronistic and in any case would be impossible to maintain consistently.”7 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286417sym)

In verse 12, Paul speaks of women “having authority” over men. Because of its conjunction with the verb to teach, it cannot be argued that women cannot have authority over men in office. “It is, therefore, more likely that the verb [having authority] characterizes the nature of the teaching rather than the role of the women in church leadership in general.”8 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286418sym) What he is forbidding is a specific kind of teaching. “Paul would then be saying that the Ephesian women are to stop teaching with a view to gaining the upper hand over the men.”9 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286419sym) This phrase “having authority” is a command relating to the kind of teaching the women were doing.

Looking at the context around this passage also helps in its interpretation. An egalitarian will point to other passages where Paul speaks to women teaching to refute the idea that women are never allowed to teach. “Despite claims to the contrary, Paul cannot be categorically prohibiting women from teaching, for in a letter written about the same time, Paul commands the older women in the church to teach the younger(Titus 2:3-5).”10 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864110sym) Paul here has instructed women to teach, if only each other. While this does not cement the case, it prevents any idea of women doing no biblical teaching at all.

Cultural context also sheds light on the issue. The same submissive attitude of women “was also expected of male students studying under a rabbi, who, after ordination, would be both teaching and exercising authority.”11 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864111sym) The command for women to be submissive does not then prevent them from being able to teach later, after teaching. There is also an argument that Paul’s instruction for women not to teach was only a result of the culture. “It would have been counterproductive to allow women to teach and proclaim the apostolic witness to Christ.”12 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864112sym) However, now it would not be counterproductive, so women should be allowed to teach.

2) Complementarianism also affirms the equality of men and women before God. “Men and women have equal value to God, and should be seen by us as having absolutely equal value as persons, and equal value to the church.”13 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864113sym) In this view women can hold all positions in the church except for the positions of the pastor and the elder. Elders here are defined as the “highest governing authority within a local church.”14 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864114sym) Certain ruling and teaching functions are reserved for men, but all other roles and positions in the church are available to women.

The Complementarian position is grounded in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. These verses provide much of the foundation for this position. The Complementarian interpretation of these verses deal with the following: what subject matters women are allowed to teach and not teach, who women are allowed to teach and not teach, what being in “quietness and submission” means, and why the commands in this passage are not just local but are also universal.

In this passage it is clear that women are only restricted when it comes to matters of scripture, because of Paul’s relating teaching with being in the church. “The subject matter the women are forbidden to teach is scripture.”15 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864115sym) While these verses have been interpreted in the past to imply a woman’ complete silence in matters of teaching, this is simply not a correct interpretation. Elsewhere in scripture women are encouraged to instruct other women and children in matters of life and of scripture. However, he is restricting the teaching of scripture in a local church.

Paul’s instructions for the women to live in “quietness and submission” have been used to not let women speak in church or counteract the decisions of their husbands. However, it is clear that “the apostle was referring to a heart attitude and demeanor of ‘quietness’ rather than to absolute silence.”16 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864116sym) Another qualifier for women is that they are not to submit to any man, but “they were to submit themselves only to those pastors who taught sound doctrine.”17 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864117sym) Some have argued that women are free to teach as long as they teach under the oversight and authority of a man. However, George W, Night III writes, “Some have suggested that Paul is only ruling out teaching or exercise of authority apart from a man’s oversight, or just a certain type of authoritative teaching. The insistence here on silence seems to rule out all these solutions.”18 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864118sym)

The specific restrictions put on women are twofold. “They are not to teach Christian doctrine to men and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church.”19 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864119sym) George W. Night III affirms that “it is thus the activity that he prohibits, not just the office.”20 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864120sym) It is clear for the Complementarian that women in the church are not allowed to teach men or hold any office of authority over them.

The teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore we think it is God’s will that only men bear the responsibility for this office.21 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864121sym)

Teaching and authority are interpreted as connected in the text by Complementarians, so they are also connected in practice.
The defense of a Complementarian view of ministry also relies on this passage of scripture having a universal audience. Egalitarians have argued that this passage applies only to the situation at Ephesus, where education was failing among women. Grudem points out that Priscilla (who even instructed Apollos) is living in Ephesus; therefore, “Paul does not allow even…well-educated women at Ephesus to teach men in the public assembly of the church.”22 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864122sym) The reason for a universal scope relies on the verses that follow these verses. “These reasons [Adam and the Fall] are not limited to one situation in the church at Ephesus, but have application to manhood and womanhood generally.”23 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864123sym) The universality of the fall applies to everyone, and thus, so do the commands in this passage.

Footnotes:

1 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286411anc) I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1999), 456.

2 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286412anc) Walter L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 104.

3 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286413anc) Talbert-Wettler. “Feminism, Christian,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2001), 448-451

4 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286414anc) Liefeld, NIV Application Commentary. 98.

5 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286415anc) Linda L. Belleville, “1 Timothy,” in The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary. Eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans (Grand Rapids: IVP, 2002), 734-747.

6 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286416anc) Marshall, A Critical Commentary, 455.

7 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286417anc) Ibid, 455.

8 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286418anc) Ibid. 460.

9 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post18286419anc) Belleville, Women’s Bible Commentary. 734-747

10 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864110anc) Ibid.

11 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864111anc) Liefeld, NIV Application Commentary. 97.

12 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864112anc) Ibid.98.

13 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864113anc) Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 937.

14 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864114anc) Ibid. 944.

15 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864115anc) Dorothy Kelly Patterson, and Rhonda Harrington Kelly. Women’s Evangelical Commentary: New Testament, (Nashville, Holman, 2006), 664.

16 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864116anc) Ibid.

17 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864117anc) Patterson, Women’s Evangelical Commentary. 664.

18 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864118anc) George W Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 142.

19 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864119anc) Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 177.

20 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864120anc) Knight, The Pastoral Epistles. 142.

21 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864121anc) John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 64.

22 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864122anc) Grudem, Systematic Theology, 939.

23 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864123anc) Ibid. 938.

Levin
Oct 17th 2008, 07:41 AM
So, here's what I believe:

I. Key text

1 Timothy 2:11-12 reads “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” This passage is a very difficult passage to interpret. For one, the word “authority” translated from , occurs only 5 times in the entire New Testament, and only 82 times as a verb in 1st century Greek texts.1 Other words, such as “quietness” or “silent” also put many interpreters in opposition. Finally, determining whether or not Paul is simply addressing a cultural problem at 1st century Ephesus or is teaching the entire body of Christ is difficult.



Preferred View: I believe that the Complementarian view is correct based upon the following hermeneutical strategies applied to the problem:





Literary Context



This passage falls in the book of 1 Timothy, which is part of the New Testament, was written by Paul, and is part of the Pastoral Epistles. It was written to Timothy, during his ministry at the city of Ephesus, and was written to instruct Timothy on how to run the church. The letter is very practical, so much so that “the whole letter could be read as instructions to a bishop about how to order and direct the life of a Christian congregation.”24 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864124sym)

In this letter there are numerous references to the teaching of heresy. One of Paul’s main purposes in writing this letter is to instruct Timothy to hold on to the true teaching of scripture. In the words of Douglas Moo, Paul wrote the letter “because the church at Ephesus…is beset by false teaching.”25 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864125sym)

For the near context of the passage, Paul in v. 8 instructs, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.” Paul connects this verse with the following verse: “Likewise, women [to pray], in modest dress.”26 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864126sym) He addresses the issues that the church was having during prayer or meeting times. The women’s problem with dress is directly connected with the men’s problems with quarrelling and anger.27 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864127sym) Paul then instructs women to dress with “good deeds,” and the passage in question contains some examples of what these good deeds do not look like.28 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864128sym)

Directly following the passage, in vss. 13 and 14 Paul gives his justification for his instruction. In these verses it becomes clear that Paul’s instructions to the believers at Ephesus were not just meant for them in that time, but they apply to every believer and human being who has lived since then. These verses read, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” In these verses Paul gives two reasons for his command. “They[women] are not to [teach] because of the order in which God created man and woman and because of how man and woman fell into sin.”29 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864129sym)

In these verses Paul is referring to a situation that influences all mankind, for all men are descendents of Adam and Eve. “These reasons are not limited to one situation in the church at Ephesus, but have application to manhood and womanhood generally.”30 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864130sym) It has been suggested that Paul is only addressing women who have succumbed to false teaching in Ephesus, much in the same way that Eve succumbed to the temptation of Satan. However, the role that false teaching plays in this verse is much overplayed, for the position Paul takes on women in ministry is his customary position.31 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864131sym)






Historical Context



Paul wrote this letter to Timothy in c. 64 C.E. It was likely written to Timothy when he was in Ephesus, although this point is debated by scholars.32 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864132sym) The church at this time was beset by many heresies. “False teachers advocating asceticism based on the law are undermining the work of Paul and his companions in Ephesus.”33 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864133sym) However, Paul does not inform the reader a great deal about what kind of heresies these are or how they impact the church, though some commentators have suggested that the false teachers came from inside the church.34 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864134sym)
Women in 1st century Ephesus were at and educational disadvantage. They “were less likely to be literate than men, were trained in philosophy far less often than men.”35 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864135sym) Letting women learn the law at all was radical, and so was letting women speak in their assemblies. In a Greek [public meeting], women were not allowed to speak at all.36 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864136sym) Keener suggests that Paul has two plans for the women, with the short term plan not letting them teach and the long term letting them learn.37 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864137sym)




Word Study



The first word to be studied in the passage is the word for “quietness.” This word can be translated “quietly,” “quiet,” “quiet fashion,” “fell silent,” and “quiet life.” The word conveys a feeling of stillness, rather than silence. It could also mean something similar to “peacableness.”38 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864138sym) It is obvious that some women were not learning this way in the churches in Ephesus. These women had chosen to follow the teachings of these false teachers.39 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864139sym) Paul would then be encouraging them to learn in a quiet, peaceful, way, instead of being quarrelsome.

The second word is “submission.” This word can be translated as “control,” “obedience,” or “subjection.” It is derived from a word that carries the connotation of rank with this subjection. In Titus 3:1, Paul uses the same word to remind his audience to “be subject to rulers.” Christians were to subject themselves to those who had legitimate authority over them.40 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864140sym)

The third word to be studied is the word “teach.” In the New Testament times, the word teach did not just mean transferring information, but it also carried to connotation of authority to teach.41 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864141sym) This verb is used when Jesus taught, and Paul often uses this word to denote doctrinal instruction.42 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864142sym) However, this is the same verb used when women are instructed to teach younger women in Titus 2:3-4. Women, then, are not prohibited from teaching; they are only prohibited from teaching scripture to men.

The final word is the most difficult. Translated into English as “authority,” this Greek word is not found any other place in the New Testament or in the Septuagint at all. However, there are two other verbs in the NT similar in form to this word. They are translated “own accord,” and “self-willed,” respectively. While they shed some light on the issue, it is difficult to come to any firm conclusions regarding this word.43 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864143sym)




Scripture Interprets Scripture



While 1 Timothy 2:11-12 gives much information on the roles of men and women both in the church structure and in their roles in teaching, there are other scriptures that help clarify what Paul is saying. 1 Corinthians 14: 33b-36 is one such passage. It reads:


As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


It is clear that Paul is not in fact preventing women in the church from speaking, for he has just been writing how they are all to speak and prophecy.44 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864144sym) It should rather be interpreted in light of the surrounding context. Paul’s point is that the women may not participate in the weighing and interpreting of these prophecies.45 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864145sym) This is because “the careful weighing of prophecies falls under that magisterial function,”46 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864146sym) that is, the function of teaching and expositing scripture. Paul’s teachings are consistent between 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14.47 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864147sym)

Other verses that support the idea of male authority are Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. In these passages, men are revealed as the “head” of women (in a marriage context). In a New Testament context, the word for head can rightly be translated as “authority over.”48 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864148sym) This authority was present from creation in Genesis. From the beginning, the human race has been designated “man,” not “woman.”49 He created man as the head, and woman as the helper. So then, men have authority over their wives, mirroring the ideas of 1 Timothy 2:12.




Progressive Revelation - Negatively



The role of women in God’s redemptive plan has certainly changed shape over the last 4,000 years; however, the doctrine of male authority and headship has not changed. There is a unity going through all of scripture conveying that the roles of women and the roles of men are indeed separate on some occasions and in reference to certain offices. The role of man as head of the wife and family and having authority over them can be found in the entire corpus of scripture.
In Genesis, the male was created first, and was created differently, from woman. God himself created humans as male and female. “It is God who wants men to be men and women to be women.”50 These distinctions between men and women were there before the fall; they are part of what makes humans humans. The fact that Adam was created first gives him authority; Paul uses the order of creation as the main reason why women are to be submissive to men in 1 Timothy 2.
This theme continues in the relationship of Abraham and Sarah. In 1 Peter 3, she is praised as a woman who submitted to her husband. Peter has just explained how a good wife is to act, and Sarah is shown as an example of this. Sarah “obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.” Her submission is described positively by Peter.

Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection did not in any way change this doctrine. Jesus, the Son of God, was male, not female. He also recognized role distinctions between sexes. “Nowhere is this issue seen more clearly than in Jesus’ selection of only men for the role of apostle.”51 He specifically chose men to communicate his gospel message to the masses, and to teach his words. In doing this he followed the clear distinctions of male and females already communicated from creation.

After Jesus’ resurrection, these role distinctions remained clear. Paul made it abundantly clear in 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5:23, and 1 Corinthians 14 that there are clear differences between men and women and that men are to have the authority. Peter also explains these ideas in 1 Peter 3. The authority of males and the differences in gender roles can be seen throughout scripture and the outworking of God’s redemptive plan.



Footnotes

1 I. Howard Marshall, [I]A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1999), 456.

24 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864124anc) Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ, (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1980), 191.

25 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864125anc) Moo, “What Does it Mean?” 177.

26 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864126anc) Ibid. 178.

27 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864127anc) Clark, Man and Woman, 193.

28 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864128anc) Moo, “What Does it Mean?” 179.

29 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864129anc) Ibid, 176.

30 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864130anc) Grudem, Systematic Theology, 938.

31 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864131anc) Moo, “What Does it Mean?” 184.

32 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864132anc) E. E. Ellis, “Pastoral letters,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 661.

33 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864133anc) Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 606.

34 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864134anc) Gordon Fee. New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 8.

35 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864135anc) Keener, IVP Commentary, 611.

36 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864136anc) D.A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches,” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 144.

37 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864137anc) Keener, IVP Commentary, 611.

38 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864138anc) Moo, “What Does it Mean?” 179.

39 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864139anc) Ibid.

40 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864140anc) Ibid.

41 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864141anc) Clark, Man and Woman, 195.

42 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864142anc) Moo, “What Does it Mean?” 181.

43 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864143anc) Ibid, 182.

44 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864144anc) Grudem, Systematic Theology, 939.

45 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864145anc) Carson, “Silent in the Churches,” 142.

46 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864146anc) Ibid, 143.

47 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864147anc) Grudem, Systematic Theology, 939.

48 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1828641#post182864148anc) Wayne Grudem. “The Meaning of Kephale,” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 144.

49 Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr, “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 88.

50 Ibid, 89.

51 James A. Borland, “Women in the Life and Teachings of Jesus, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 111.

Chimon
Oct 17th 2008, 10:55 AM
And the lesson we are learning is: Don't argue with Levin, he uses footnotes. :D

Honestly, I don't have time to read this right now, but it looks interesting.

godsgirl
Oct 17th 2008, 11:31 AM
A woman should do whatever God calls her to do.

The Preacher
Oct 17th 2008, 11:43 AM
So, here's what I believe:

I. Key text

1 Timothy 2:11-12 reads “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” This passage is a very difficult passage to interpret. For one, the word “authority” translated from , occurs only 5 times in the entire New Testament, and only 82 times as a verb in 1st century Greek texts.1 Other words, such as “quietness” or “silent” also put many interpreters in opposition. Finally, determining whether or not Paul is simply addressing a cultural problem at 1st century Ephesus or is teaching the entire body of Christ is difficult.



Perhaps you would enjoy critiquing the article I posted "The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy" in this same forum.

Whispering Grace
Oct 17th 2008, 11:46 AM
A woman should do whatever God calls her to do.

Agreed. But God is not going to call a woman to do anything that goes against His Word.

The Preacher
Oct 17th 2008, 11:53 AM
Agreed. But God is not going to call a woman to do anything that goes against His Word.

Do you believe that Katherine Kuhlman went against God's word?
What about Mary Woodworth-Etter?
Aimie Semple Mcpherson?

Chimon
Oct 17th 2008, 11:59 AM
Do you believe that Katherine Kuhlman went against God's word?
What about Mary Woodworth-Etter?
Aimie Semple Mcpherson?

I think that what grace is saying is that determining what God's word says is important because we need to evaluate what we feel is our calling through the context of God's word.

uric3
Oct 17th 2008, 12:16 PM
Well a woman isn't qualified to be a Pastor.

According to 1st Tim 3:2 "A Pastor then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

According to the qualifications listed in 1st Tim 3 and in Titus 1 a woman can not be a Pastor.

Athanasius
Oct 17th 2008, 12:24 PM
I don't see a problem with it...

Br. Barnabas
Oct 17th 2008, 12:50 PM
There have been discussions like this before I am going to go ahead and post what I posted in one of those discussions.

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.

superwoman8977
Oct 17th 2008, 02:15 PM
Okay well I have been taught over the years that anything a man can do a woman can do. I went to a church where the woman was the pastor and let me tell you there was more compassion and love in that church for its members and their needs than I have ever seen in any church I have been in. God looks at the open heart not whether the person is male or female. So yes women can be pastors...look at Paula White and Joyce Meyer and counteless other women and the lives they have touched.

Dani H
Oct 17th 2008, 02:34 PM
Kathryn Kuhlman once said that she thought God had originally reserved her job for a man, first of all, and that she was not His first choice. :)

Not all women in authority positions necessarily want to be there, or asked for it. But God can work around that, because in Christ, there is neither male nor female. Deborah, for example, was a judge in Israel and did an outstanding job. So do what God calls you do to, and do it well.

Also, remember, there were women at the foot of the cross, long after all the menfolk had left.

Less qualified?

I think not. ;)

Rufus_1611
Oct 17th 2008, 02:40 PM
What do you think about women pastor's.
There is no such thing.

Whispering Grace
Oct 17th 2008, 02:57 PM
Okay well I have been taught over the years that anything a man can do a woman can do.

Not according to God's Word.



So yes women can be pastors...look at Paula White and Joyce Meyer and counteless other women and the lives they have touched.

Show me in God's Word where it says women can be pastors.

Whispering Grace
Oct 17th 2008, 03:03 PM
I think that what grace is saying is that determining what God's word says is important because we need to evaluate what we feel is our calling through the context of God's word.

That is correct. God's Word trumps our feelings if they do not agree.

Levin
Oct 17th 2008, 06:31 PM
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.

One question for you Uriel: what is your ultimate arbiter of truth? If someone feels led by the Holy Spirit to do something that is against the Word of God then I would say this is not from the Spirit. How am I to know that the feeling and call I have on my heart is from the Holy Spirit? Do I rely on the way I feel or some mystical experience? What is the standard by which I judge this experience. Joseph Smith felt led by God to follow the truth. He was clearly not following the Spirit, no matter what he may have said or felt.

We as a community of faith need to make sure that we keep at highest priority the only perspicuous means of truth we have access to: God's Word. All revelation and promptings of the Holy Spirit need to be judged by what has been clearly revealed. If the Bible teaches that women should not be pastors or exegete scripture to men then I don't care what the Holy Spirit may or may not be telling you: God has already revealed His will and He will not contradict Himself. However, if the call of the Spirit follows clear Biblical teaching then go for it.

I don't think that we can allow women to be pastors (see my lengthy posts above) considering the teachings of Paul. However, I'm not going to go around condemning egalitarians. I attended a church with a female head pastor for about year, but decided that I could no longer attend due to the lack of Biblical leadership and strong Biblical teaching.

I think that there is great freedom for both men and women if we choose to follow our created glory and pursue those things that are our specific strengths and roles. I'm not going to die for this doctrine, but I think we're missing out on abundant life by going towards feminism and away from what the Bible teaches regarding women and men.

Here's a link to site where you can download a book (yep, and entire book for free) on the subject:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/1599_Recovering_Biblical_Manhood_and_Womanhood/

In Christ Alone,
Levin

Br. Barnabas
Oct 17th 2008, 06:58 PM
One question for you Uriel: what is your ultimate arbiter of truth? If someone feels led by the Holy Spirit to do something that is against the Word of God then I would say this is not from the Spirit. How am I to know that the feeling and call I have on my heart is from the Holy Spirit? Do I rely on the way I feel or some mystical experience? What is the standard by which I judge this experience. Joseph Smith felt led by God to follow the truth. He was clearly not following the Spirit, no matter what he may have said or felt.


I think that the Bible needs to be used but it is not the end of all truth because we have the Holy Spirit in us and of course any person that wants to be a pastor needs to be tested by other Godly people and leaders. If the Holy Spirit is telling these other people that this person should be a pastor then I think it is clear that they should be a pastor.

Again I am going to have to say that it is a moot point about what you personally believe about women in the role of pastor because we see Godly organizations and churches that have women pastors. We all can point to some churches that do not have Godly leaders, some of the churches will have men pastors some will have women pastors.

The thing is that we see Paul allowing women to have roles in ministry such as Pheobe holding the role of deacon. Which is not a pastor I know but it is close and in many traditions they are given almost the same power if not more over how the church is lead and governed. But that is beside the point.

If God cannot change his mind on things then he should have destoryed the city of Ninevah and he should have killed Adam and Eve right after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yet he did not we have a loving and merciful God and I believe that he can allow things to change. So now that women can be just as if not more educated then men they should/could be able to hold the role of pastor, priest, presbyter whatever you call it.

petepet
Oct 17th 2008, 07:03 PM
A woman should do whatever God calls her to do.

Proof positive that women should not be allowed to teach authoritatively !!!! While at first sight sounding spiritual this statement of godsgirl is full of pitfalls. It basically means that a woman can do whatever she feels like doing.

EIN
Oct 17th 2008, 07:18 PM
I think that the Bible needs to be used but it is not the end of all truth because we have the Holy Spirit in us and of course any person that wants to be a pastor needs to be tested by other Godly people and leaders. If the Holy Spirit is telling these other people that this person should be a pastor then I think it is clear that they should be a pastor.

Whoa Nelly! The Bible IS the end all... You can't have the Bible PLUS something. That's how cults (and bad theology) start.

As far as women being pastors, it is not Biblical. Women in teaching positions, sure. Pastors, not so much.

God has established a certain order: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3) If you have a woman as a pastor, then her husband, who may be a member of that congregation, is supposed to be under her authority, which screws everything up. If a woman is a pastor and she's supposed to be "the husband of but one wife," that leads us to a whole 'nother issue.

I think the Bible is pretty clear on this subject. Let's not let our thoughts, ideas and feelings go against what the Word says.

petepet
Oct 17th 2008, 07:25 PM
I think that the Bible needs to be used but it is not the end of all truth because we have the Holy Spirit in us and of course any person that wants to be a pastor needs to be tested by other Godly people and leaders. If the Holy Spirit is telling these other people that this person should be a pastor then I think it is clear that they should be a pastor.

Again I am going to have to say that it is a moot point about what you personally believe about women in the role of pastor because we see Godly organizations and churches that have women pastors. We all can point to some churches that do not have Godly leaders, some of the churches will have men pastors some will have women pastors.

The thing is that we see Paul allowing women to have roles in ministry such as Pheobe holding the role of deacon. Which is not a pastor I know but it is close and in many traditions they are given almost the same power if not more over how the church is lead and governed. But that is beside the point.

If God cannot change his mind on things then he should have destoryed the city of Ninevah and he should have killed Adam and Eve right after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yet he did not we have a loving and merciful God and I believe that he can allow things to change. So now that women can be just as if not more educated then men they should/could be able to hold the role of pastor, priest, presbyter whatever you call it.

We are specifically told what Phoebe's role was. It was to be a helper of the saints. We cannot just speculate about her role outside what we are told. The New Testament never anywhere approves of women teaching publicly except in giving family guidance to other women.

Gid never just changed His mind. His mind was changed because men changed making it possible for him to show mercy.

petepet
Oct 17th 2008, 07:32 PM
Also, remember, there were women at the foot of the cross, long after all the menfolk had left.

Less qualified?

I think not. ;)


I'm sorry but that is a totally fallaciuos argument. The women were in no danger. They could safely stay there. But the men could well have been arrested as dangerous revolutionaries. John was safe because he was related to the High Priest.

The Preacher
Oct 17th 2008, 07:33 PM
Well a woman isn't qualified to be a Pastor.

According to 1st Tim 3:2 "A Pastor then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

According to the qualifications listed in 1st Tim 3 and in Titus 1 a woman can not be a Pastor.

I used to take this to the extreme and demand silence from women. The Lord has since shown me differently.
The body of Christ has been robbed of 50% of it's gifts by holding to this view


I will post an article that does a comprehensive study of the greek words involved and show why this isn't necessarily true.
It will be finished by next week and it will be posted to this thread. Feel free to critique it.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 17th 2008, 07:38 PM
Whoa Nelly! The Bible IS the end all... You can't have the Bible PLUS something. That's how cults (and bad theology) start.

As far as women being pastors, it is not Biblical. Women in teaching positions, sure. Pastors, not so much.

God has established a certain order: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3) If you have a woman as a pastor, then her husband, who may be a member of that congregation, is supposed to be under her authority, which screws everything up. If a woman is a pastor and she's supposed to be "the husband of but one wife," that leads us to a whole 'nother issue.

I think the Bible is pretty clear on this subject. Let's not let our thoughts, ideas and feelings go against what the Word says.

Do you deny that we have the Holy Spirit? Because I would rather have God telling me what is truth rather then a book, even a book inspired by God. You seem to be saying that we should have God plus the Bible. To me you are making the Bible more then God or adding to God by saying that we need the Bible. I believe that Christianity and true worship would have gone on even if the NT had never been composed, because we have the Holy Spirit. So to me the Bible is nice and I will pull doctrine from it but it is not the end all, the Holy Spirit has to be the end all and the last authority on things. Because Christianty survived for quite a while before all the books of the NT were composed and found to be authorative.

I would suggest a different understanding of the verse you provide. Head does not have to be leader it can also be source, like the head of a river is the source of the river. I believe this to be a much better understanding of the verse. Otherwise you are saying that God is more powerful then Christ and that gets into all sorts of heresy that I don't need to go into right now.

Again if you don't want to be a part of a church that has a woman in the role of pastor then don't I don't care but you cannot deny that women hold the role of pastor. They do even if you don't like it, they still do. And if the church fails or the woman fails at leading it then you know what we see that it was not from God. But if the church continues and brings more into it and it is clear that God is working in it then we see that it works. It is much like what Gamaliel said of the church. If it is not from God it will fail and if it is from God then you cannot fight against it.

And really I doubt that having a discussion about it on an internet forum is really going to change the churches that have women pastor's minds.

godsgirl
Oct 17th 2008, 07:38 PM
Proof positive that women should not be allowed to teach authoritatively !!!! While at first sight sounding spiritual this statement of godsgirl is full of pitfalls. It basically means that a woman can do whatever she feels like doing.


Why would you say my statement said something it did not?

godsgirl
Oct 17th 2008, 07:40 PM
The short answer is that all women should be Stepford wives.
Speak only when spoken to, and be obedient and cater to their husbands every whim
In your dreams ……………..Here is the real answer……..It’s a bit longer
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 as some groups have done.
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; ultimately it comes down to respect of the Word.

The following is a break-down of verses 9-15 I will post on I Corinthians separately
I Timothy 2:9-15
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” 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) gunê = 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) sôphrosunê 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 – 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 you’re a knock out, 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 = 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 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 – 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 {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.

Verse 15
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 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) agapê 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. Its love in it’s fullest conceivable form, and beyond.
And holiness - as becoming to the husband and wife as devoted to God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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

The Preacher
Oct 17th 2008, 07:52 PM
Excellent post, God's girl. I have a more throughly detailed defense that a friend and I are collaborating on. You will find it interesting.
I just want to say that this issue isn't one of "oneupmanship" It's critical to the body of Christ. Did anyone watch some of Melissa Scott's teaching? If so,can you honestly evaluate her as unqualified or is this opinion the result of a biased perspective filtered through a paradigm?

Whispering Grace
Oct 17th 2008, 08:15 PM
I'm sorry but that is a totally fallaciuos argument. The women were in no danger. They could safely stay there. But the men could well have been arrested as dangerous revolutionaries. John was safe because he was related to the High Priest.

I guess I didn't understand (from her comment) how the women sticking around made them eligible for a position God did not ordain for them. :confused

maasive10
Oct 17th 2008, 08:19 PM
First off I want to point out that I am a woman - I copied and pasted some info from an article I read - I just couldn't put it into better words. The entire article can be found at the link at the bottom


Ephesians 5:22-28. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3:18,19. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.

1 Corinthians 11:3. 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.

The man’s headship over his wife was placed on the same cultural setting as the Father’s headship of the Son. If God has not changed with culture, then neither should the husband’s headship over the wife. God never intended for this husband-wife pattern to change with culture.

OK so it is not culturally conditioned. What then is the meaning of submit? In what way is the man the head of his wife? The best way to understand this, according to 1 Corinthians 11:3, is to observe God-Christ relationship. This is analogous to the husband-wife relationship. In the same way God is the head of Christ, a husband is the head of his wife. Wives must submit to their husbands in the same way Christ submitted to His Father. Husbands must love their wives the same way God loves His Son. Of course, we could also use the Christ-church relationship as a pattern for the husband-wife relationship and we would end up with the same conclusions. The reason I’m not using that approach though is because the church is divided on exactly what is its relationship with Christ. But the Bible is clear on the relationship between God and Christ. That has not been altered by culture and time.

So in what way did Christ have to submit to God? For one, Jesus was on earth doing His Father’s business (Luke 2:46). He did nothing unless He saw His Father do it (John 5:19). That suggests to me that the husband is supposed to be the spiritual leader of his household. He is supposed to have a “vision for his family”, just to use commonplace terminology. Unfortunately, most men today are far from this ideal. Don’t think for one minute that my intention is to bash women. The problem today is that men are not men of God, and women are not like the women of old (1 Peter 3:5). It’s a combination of both, and who knows how that ties in to the 50% divorce rate? Admittedly, if a husband is a true man of God, it makes it easier for a woman of God to submit to his authority. So what if he isn’t a man of God? There is still 1 Peter 3:1-7, which urges women to be submissive anyway, since that is the best way to win him to Christ, or to pursue a closer walk with God if he is already saved.

Find the rest here:
http://www.geocities.com/dcheddie/submission.html


I just lastly wanted to mention that women may be given gifts to speak and may be great orators - I do however think they need to find another venue that Pastorship to use this gift. The bible is clear and I truly find it a comfort to be under the submission and headship of my husband and Father in Heaven.

EIN
Oct 17th 2008, 08:25 PM
Do you deny that we have the Holy Spirit? Because I would rather have God telling me what is truth rather then a book, even a book inspired by God. You seem to be saying that we should have God plus the Bible. To me you are making the Bible more then God or adding to God by saying that we need the Bible. I believe that Christianity and true worship would have gone on even if the NT had never been composed, because we have the Holy Spirit. So to me the Bible is nice and I will pull doctrine from it but it is not the end all, the Holy Spirit has to be the end all and the last authority on things. Because Christianty survived for quite a while before all the books of the NT were composed and found to be authorative.

No, no, no! Not deying that at all. Scripture talks about it. My point is that we can't deny the Scripture or say that it's not perfect or say that it needs something else. I've seen too many people do and say things in the name of the Holy Spirit when it was nothing more than gas. ;) Seriously...


And really I doubt that having a discussion about it on an internet forum is really going to change the churches that have women pastor's minds.

It may not, but as long as we keep things civil, at least we can discuss both sides of the coin.

Dani H
Oct 17th 2008, 08:46 PM
I'm sorry but that is a totally fallaciuos argument. The women were in no danger. They could safely stay there. But the men could well have been arrested as dangerous revolutionaries. John was safe because he was related to the High Priest.

What does a ;) mean to you after a statement?

Relax please. :)

The Parson
Oct 17th 2008, 08:47 PM
Folks, don't get yourself in a dander but we are doing a repeat of a previous thread here that actually got a bit out of hand. I'm closing this one down and considering merging it with the previous one.