Should women have authority over men in the Church?

[lovely]

No, women shouldn't have authority over the men in the church. Elders should only be men, and there is a very specific criteria for these men, so not all men can be elders or be an authority over other men. I believe that women should be covered to glorify God in the meeting, and that they should pray, testify, sing, teach, etc. according to the guidlines in the word, as the Lord leads, and within the framework that He has been set up by the elders who are called and qualified to lead their local assembly.

Outside the assembly, women are called to spread the Gospel, to teach good things, to teach younger women, to serve the widow, the sick, the orphan, to be hospitable, and to be productive helpmeets and mothers, etc.

The Lord bless all of you.

 

[destiny]

Elders should only be men, and there is a very specific criteria for these men, so not all men can be elders or be an authority over other men.

You hit on an important part hrere. A Called by God elder will make sure the entire body is functioning both in Spirit and in Truth...

1 Cor. 12:7 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:
12:8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit,
12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit,
12:10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills."

Those whose righteousness is found only in the letter will oppress the church and lord over it in place of the Holy Spirit. If some here had their way, we would have to assume the verses I quoted above were written only for men.

 

[NooneSpecial]

So you SAY but the Bible PLAINLY Offers that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

blessings,

MEC

Does not the truth of the Bible say that WITH or THROUGH God ALL things ARE POSSIBLE?

 

[Imagican]

So you SAY but the Bible PLAINLY Offers that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

blessings,

MEC

Does not the truth of the Bible say that WITH or THROUGH God ALL things ARE POSSIBLE?

Ha ha ha ha, no really, let me get my breath....................ah....wow, ok..... I feel better now.

Hmmmmmm..........yes it does.

But it also offers instruction concerning what it TAKES to follow in truth. The words offered that ALL things are possible is ONLY concerning those 'things' that do NOT condradict the NATURE of God.

From YOUR perspective, I guess you THINK that God can LIE? Or STEAL? or commit adultery? Hmmmm...... So you SEE the humor that I found in your statement?

And I did NOT mean my words to offer insult or ANYTHING other than the humor that I found in the statement. It's not a 'bad' thing to be able to laugh and find amusement where we CAN.

If you will note my statement, you will SEE that what I stated was; "According to The Word, women are NOT to usurp the authority of MEN". I didn't WRITE it. I have simply chosen to follow what we have been offered in TRUTH. So, if this is TRUTH, then women CANNOT BE 'church leaders' according TO The Word.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

You are unbelievable, the way you pick and choose what to believe concerning Paul's writings.

 

[Guest]

If you will note my statement, you will SEE that what I stated was; "According to The Word, women are NOT to usurp the authority of MEN". I didn't WRITE it. I have simply chosen to follow what we have been offered in TRUTH. So, if this is TRUTH, then women CANNOT BE 'church leaders' according TO The Word.

I want everyone to be aware of the tactic above. It seems to be a common tactic in debates around here.

The bolded statement is equating one interpretation of the passage with the true interpretation. This means any other interpretations are considered flawed and wrong by default. It is a way of saying, "I am right. You are wrong. The end." This tactic is often combined with an authority shift from the person or person's argument to God. That is, because it is the true interpretation of Scripture then it follows the interpretation is God's True Word -- what God means to say. This means to argue with the true interpretation is to find oneself arguing against God. Thus, not only have you been marked as having the wrong interpretation, but you are also arguing against God. As you might imagine, this is an undesirable position to be in when debating. The problem with such an approach is that it employs the No True Scotsman fallacy (i.e., true interpretation) and abuses God's authority via the truth.

This is not intended as an attack on Imagican. Nor, do I intend my statement to be understood as an agreement or disagreement with Imagican's interpretation. Rather, I am merely pointing out the debate tactic being used to sway opinion.

 

[NooneSpecial]

Ha ha ha ha, no really, let me get my breath....................ah....wow, ok..... I feel better now.

Hmmmmmm..........yes it does.

But it also offers instruction concerning what it TAKES to follow in truth. The words offered that ALL things are possible is ONLY concerning those 'things' that do NOT condradict the NATURE of God.

From YOUR perspective, I guess you THINK that God can LIE? Or STEAL? or commit adultery? Hmmmm...... So you SEE the humor that I found in your statement?

And I did NOT mean my words to offer insult or ANYTHING other than the humor that I found in the statement. It's not a 'bad' thing to be able to laugh and find amusement where we CAN.

If you will note my statement, you will SEE that what I stated was; "According to The Word, women are NOT to usurp the authority of MEN". I didn't WRITE it. I have simply chosen to follow what we have been offered in TRUTH. So, if this is TRUTH, then women CANNOT BE 'church leaders' according TO The Word.

Blessings,

MEC

You place words in my mouth. Wherever did I state that I believed God could lie, steal, commit adultery?

Which again begs the question others including myself have asked in regards of a teaching you pushed earlier in this topic that has yet to be proven biblical.

So I will ask again:

Is there any such passage in scripture that clearly states Eve was envious? Also....why is it always Eve who solely is to take the blame for the fall of MAN in the garden of Eden? Do not recall it being written anywhere that Adam partook of the forbidden fruit by anything outside of his own choosing.

Where too did I argue with you in terms of women's place within the church?

Your humor in my response is actually quite curious seeing as the context in which it was spoken was much different than that of which you read it in.

 

[mondar]

And, this is where the crux of the matter is to me. If Paul can give different, seemingly contradictory (albeit NOT) instructions to the church at Corinth and the church at Ephesus, then it calls into question if his specific instructions to Timothy at Ephesus is a pointed command of God's for the whole church for all time, or a specific instruction to Timothy to deal with an issue at Ephesus, in which the church might learn from should a similar occasion arise.

So let me restate this. If Paul addresses two different and separate categories of women
1-- Virgins (1Cor 7)
2-- Young Widows (1 Tim 5)
Because Paul tells one group (virgins) that they should remain single and the other group (young widows) that they should remarry.

Now the issue of women pastors and teachers is a different topic. It is also two different contexts. Nevertheless, both contexts agree, and say the same thing
1-- 1 Cor 14
2-- 1Tim 2.

In your mind, even thought they are completely different topics and completely different contexts, nevertheless, because there is different instructions to two separate groups, widows and virgins, this means that somehow we can make the leap to the other issue and overturn two united contexts dealing with the role of women in the Church.

Handy, I did not have to jump to other topics and passages. I specifically demonstrated that cultural issues had no relevance in the argumentation of Paul in 1 Tim 2. You ignored the exegesis which demonstrates that in Paul's reasoning, the role of women in the Church is grounded in order in creation. After ignoring this, you jump to a completely separate issue. You assume no difference between a virgin and a widow, and then make conclusions about the role of women in the church based upon a completely separate issue and completely separate contexts.

Handy, you still have to answer.....
Why is there any problem with Paul instructing two separate categories of women (Virgins and Widows) to have two different attitudes about marrying? And what does that have to do with womens roles in the Church? And what about commenting on the exegesis of 1 Tim 2?

 

[whirlwind]

So you SAY but the Bible PLAINLY Offers that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

blessings,

MEC

Does not the truth of the Bible say that WITH or THROUGH God ALL things ARE POSSIBLE?

Ha ha ha ha, no really, let me get my breath....................ah....wow, ok..... I feel better now.

Hmmmmmm..........yes it does.

But it also offers instruction concerning what it TAKES to follow in truth. The words offered that ALL things are possible is ONLY concerning those 'things' that do NOT condradict the NATURE of God.

From YOUR perspective, I guess you THINK that God can LIE? Or STEAL? or commit adultery? Hmmmm...... So you SEE the humor that I found in your statement?

And I did NOT mean my words to offer insult or ANYTHING other than the humor that I found in the statement. It's not a 'bad' thing to be able to laugh and find amusement where we CAN.

If you will note my statement, you will SEE that what I stated was; "According to The Word, women are NOT to usurp the authority of MEN". I didn't WRITE it. I have simply chosen to follow what we have been offered in TRUTH. So, if this is TRUTH, then women CANNOT BE 'church leaders' according TO The Word.

Blessings,

MEC

Actually...."women are NOT to usurp the authority of MEN," is NOT what is written. :eyebrow

1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Let the woman , the wife or bride of Christ...(which includes us all) learn in silence (in stillness).

Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

None of us are to take authority over our Husband....Christ, "The Man." We (male and female) are not to teach anything other than His Word. We are to be still and learn from Him, to allow His Spirit to lead, guide and direct our lives.

 

[handy]

And, this is where the crux of the matter is to me. If Paul can give different, seemingly contradictory (albeit NOT) instructions to the church at Corinth and the church at Ephesus, then it calls into question if his specific instructions to Timothy at Ephesus is a pointed command of God's for the whole church for all time, or a specific instruction to Timothy to deal with an issue at Ephesus, in which the church might learn from should a similar occasion arise.

So let me restate this. If Paul addresses two different and separate categories of women
1-- Virgins (1Cor 7)
2-- Young Widows (1 Tim 5)
Because Paul tells one group (virgins) that they should remain single and the other group (young widows) that they should remarry.

Now the issue of women pastors and teachers is a different topic. It is also two different contexts. Nevertheless, both contexts agree, and say the same thing
1-- 1 Cor 14
2-- 1Tim 2.

In your mind, even thought they are completely different topics and completely different contexts, nevertheless, because there is different instructions to two separate groups, widows and virgins, this means that somehow we can make the leap to the other issue and overturn two united contexts dealing with the role of women in the Church.

Handy, I did not have to jump to other topics and passages. I specifically demonstrated that cultural issues had no relevance in the argumentation of Paul in 1 Tim 2. You ignored the exegesis which demonstrates that in Paul's reasoning, the role of women in the Church is grounded in order in creation. After ignoring this, you jump to a completely separate issue. You assume no difference between a virgin and a widow, and then make conclusions about the role of women in the church based upon a completely separate issue and completely separate contexts.

Handy, you still have to answer.....
Why is there any problem with Paul instructing two separate categories of women (Virgins and Widows) to have two different attitudes about marrying? And what does that have to do with womens roles in the Church? And what about commenting on the exegesis of 1 Tim 2?

Handy, you still have to answer.....
Why is there any problem with Paul instructing two separate categories of women (Virgins and Widows) to have two different attitudes about marrying?

There is not a problem with it. However, Paul didn't separate two categories of women, virgins and widows in his exhortation to the Corinthians not to marry. He included widows and men for that matter into this instruction as well. (1 Corinthians 7:8) Again, not a problem but it does go to show that Paul was giving different instructions to the folks at Ephesus than he was to the folks at Corinth. It would appear that Paul was giving the folks at Corinth, not a command, but an encouragement that those who were unmarried could concentrate more on the matters of God. This is something to consider in this day and age, as I did when I was single for so long. However, in the matter of the Ephesian widows, Paul seems to be addressing a specific issue in the Ephesus church. And, while both passages, 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Timothy 5 have wisdom to consider, I don't think either are binding on the church for all time. If 1 Timothy 5 is binding on the church for all time, then it contradicts Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians. If 1 Corinthians 7 was binding on the church for all time, then why the harsh instruction regarding the younger widows of Ephesus. These two passage harmonize only if one doesn't try to make them strict commands for the church for all time.



And what does that have to do with womens roles in the Church?

I tried to answer that here:
Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:18 pm
The context of both of these verses are the letters that Paul wrote to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. So, for me, by looking at the full of what Paul was saying to the Corinthians and to the Ephesians about men and women is helpful because it establishes whether Paul was speaking for the entire church for all time, or addressing specific issues within those two churches.

Looking at 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Timothy 5, I see that Paul can give differing instructions to the church that were not binding for the whole of the church. Clearly both 1 Corinthians 7:8 and 1 Timothy 5:14 cannot both be binding because they are opposites. Now, we know that the New Testament is filled with things that are binding to the church for all time. The key then is to rightly divide what is binding and what isn't.

And what about commenting on the exegesis of 1 Tim 2?

I did read through your exegesis of 1 Timothy 2, I'm sorry I gave the impression that I ignored it. It is a familiar interpretation of the passage, and one that I held tightly to for many, many years. But, being forced to attend a church with a woman pastor, and being able to see the godly leadership she is providing, especially in the face of some serious heresies the male leadership of the domination is leading the entire ELCA into, I've begun to rethink this issue. I am not at the point of rejecting or accepting anything as of now, I'm simply rethinking, reviewing and studying anew this whole subject.

While the point that Paul's basis for the instruction to the Ephesians was grounded in the order of creation is a valid one, it still raises questions. Two of the most important questions it raises is why, if it is a matter of creation that women are always to be submissive to men, (as opposed to wives being submissive to husbands) did God raise up women leaders from time to time and why did God gift women with gifts such as prophesy that requires a woman to speak and speak with authority in the church?

If it is indeed a matter of creation that women are to be subject to men, all women to men and for all time, then one can only wonder why God raises godly women to lead men. It's been rare, but clearly He has done so. Now here is where these discussions tend to get sticky. Because very often I've seen people appeal to the order of Creation in Genesis as a reason that women should never lead. But, when one brings up Deborah or Huldah, then those same people want to say, well that was the Old Testament and not the church. Last time I looked, Genesis was in the Old Testament. If God established a strict, never to be deviated from order of authority in Genesis, why was He calling on it to be deviated from when He placed Deborah as judge or Huldah as prophet? As far as the old testament folks not being part of the Body of Christ, all I can do is refer one to the book of Hebrews for the answer.

The answer would seem to be that, while the order of creation does establish roles, especially roles within marriage, God can and does sometime, especially when men are abdicating their roles or are leading God's people into apostasies, call some women to step outside of those roles and take on leadership and authority. And, in today's environment, many men are indeed abdicating their roles and/or leading people into apostasies.

Going back to the issue of widows and remarriage and this issue of women in authoritative roles, if Paul's instructions to the church were not always "this-is-God's-command-for-all-time", it gives freedom to God's people now use godly discernment in interpreting these passages. I see from Paul's instructions to the Corinthians and his instructions to the Ephesians a difference which clearly shows that the instructions regarding widows were not a "this-is-God's-command-for-all-time" matter. Does it follow then, that the strictures against women holding authority or not speaking in the assembly are "this-is-God's-command-for-all-time" issues? If they were, then why do we see God, at times, calling some women to take on authority and to speak with authority? And, if God does indeed at times call some women to take on authority and to speak with authority, might this not be one of those times?

 

[Imagican]

whirlwind,

So, your contention is that when Paul IS addressing WOMEN, what he REALLY meant was MEN? While expounding upon the PLACE of women, he suddenly went OFF tangent and began to speak 'metaphorically'? Wow.

But let's SEE:

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9In 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;

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

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

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

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

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

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Where you 'came up' with your discernment of what is offered here is 'beyond me'. Paul is OBVIOUSLY talking about FEMALES. There is NOTHING metaphoric ABOUT what he is offering. If that's the case, then we could simply MAKE up whatever we CHOSE to and attribute it to HIDDEN messages that it takes 'someone SPECIAL' to interpret.

I don't believe that anyone will have a difficult time recognizing that what you have stated has absolutely NO validity so far as TRUTH is concerned. Note: Paul explains how WOMEN are to dress and behave. It even goes so far as to point out that Adam was FIRST formed and THEN Eve and that SHE was the transgressor through deception.

I don't know what your 'agenda is' but that you have offered 'false prophecy' is without DOUBT.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[mondar]

There is not a problem with it. However, Paul didn't separate two categories of women, virgins and widows in his exhortation to the Corinthians not to marry. He included widows and men for that matter into this instruction as well. (1 Corinthians 7:8)

OK, some of what you say is fair. I missed reading that both context refer to widows. I would still not be convinced that there is a harmonization problem because the Timothy is talking about Church supported widows. The context of 1 Cor concerns the Corinthian ascetic or non ascetic philosophy. Specifically, Paul is suggesting advantages in serving the Lord. I think the assumption is that the widow in 1 Corinthians can support herself, the widow in Timothy is under the care of the Church (such as in Acts 6). However, your correction that both contexts do indeed refer to widows is received.

And what does that have to do with womens roles in the Church?

I tried to answer that here:
Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:18 pm
The context of both of these verses are the letters that Paul wrote to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. So, for me, by looking at the full of what Paul was saying to the Corinthians and to the Ephesians about men and women is helpful because it establishes whether Paul was speaking for the entire church for all time, or addressing specific issues within those two churches.

OK. I am hearing what you say here. I am not sure that I can agree that the answer has to be:
* Its either for the entire Church for all time.
* Its merely a cultural issue.

If I might make this comment without getting too detailed. I am not sure I agree that the two extremes are the only options.

Looking at 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Timothy 5, I see that Paul can give differing instructions to the church that were not binding for the whole of the church. Clearly both 1 Corinthians 7:8 and 1 Timothy 5:14 cannot both be binding because they are opposites. Now, we know that the New Testament is filled with things that are binding to the church for all time. The key then is to rightly divide what is binding and what isn't.

I am still not convinced that the instructions for Corinthians 7 and Tim 5 are "opposites." I still see harmonization as very acceptable in those contexts. I guess that is not your major point. You are expressing that there are certain specific instructions to individual Churches that do not apply to any other local Church. Right?

And what about commenting on the exegesis of 1 Tim 2?

I did read through your exegesis of 1 Timothy 2, I'm sorry I gave the impression that I ignored it...

OK, thank you.

It is a familiar interpretation of the passage, and one that I held tightly to for many, many years. But, being forced to attend a church with a woman pastor, and being able to see the godly leadership she is providing, especially in the face of some serious heresies the male leadership of the domination is leading the entire ELCA into, I've begun to rethink this issue. I am not at the point of rejecting or accepting anything as of now, I'm simply rethinking, reviewing and studying anew this whole subject.

That is an interesting anecdotal situation. It is one I am not quite as familiar with as you would be. I know one clergyman in the ELCA. We never discussed the role of women. Our discussions were centered around eccumenticalism.

While I cannot empathize with your exact situation, I can understand being influenced by someone you think Godly and maintains correct doctrine. While I dont agree with my own pastor (Reformed Baptist) on every single thing, I do admire him and I am sure he influences me more then I realize.

I know that the ELCA has some pretty huge issues. They have a pulpit sharing thing with another even more liberal denomination that accepts gay clergy. They are involved in eccumenticalism with the Roman Catholics. I must admit that female clergy seems to be such a small issue in a group with far more important issues.

While the point that Paul's basis for the instruction to the Ephesians was grounded in the order of creation is a valid one, it still raises questions. Two of the most important questions it raises is why, if it is a matter of creation that women are always to be submissive to men, (as opposed to wives being submissive to husbands) did God raise up women leaders from time to time and why did God gift women with gifts such as prophesy that requires a woman to speak and speak with authority in the church?

If it is indeed a matter of creation that women are to be subject to men, all women to men and for all time, then one can only wonder why God raises godly women to lead men.

I am not sure what to make of what you say here. On the one hand, you seem to accept the exegesis that in 1 Tim 2, Paul gives instruction to his "apostolical delegate" Timothy, not to choose female overseers (Bishops). Then on the other hand, you seem to be questioning Paul's reasoning. If that is true, it is an issue that you would have to take up with Paul. That is an issue of scriptural authority.

Is not that the bottom issue? I would agree that if Paul only intended the instructions of 1 Timothy to be kept at Ephesus, then it would not apply to local Churches elsewhere. However, since in my mind, Tim 5 and Cor 7 can be harmonized, why not the issue of female leadership.

I would like to add, that any Church that has heretical leadership, then there is a bigger problem then roles of men and women. This would not justify women Elders or Overseers, but it would justify vocal confrontation with heretical leaders. I think that would be a difficult situation. On the one hand, it would not be right to remain totally silent at all times on the issue. On the other hand, the extreme of taking over the role of elder, overseer might not be a Scripturally justified response. There are many more ways to confront heresy then to take a certain leadership role in the Church (pastor). This does not forbid certain other leadership roles.

The answer would seem to be that, while the order of creation does establish roles, especially roles within marriage, God can and does sometime, especially when men are abdicating their roles or are leading God's people into apostasies, call some women to step outside of those roles and take on leadership and authority. And, in today's environment, many men are indeed abdicating their roles and/or leading people into apostasies.

Handy, I feel as though this is getting very anecdotal. I guess thats OK. No doubt many men have gone into heresy and some are apostate. I would then look at NT passages to see how to deal with those who have gone astray. At times I think attempts at correction are in order, if that fails, it seems to me that separation is the procedure in the NT, not filling clergy roles with women.

Now some of what you say is true, God did choose women for certain roles in the OT. God choose Barak, he abdicated to a degree, and he sent Deborah. Do you read those passages and those writers (author of judges) as attempting to express that it is acceptable for women to take over positions of leadership? Is that why he wrote those narratives? Or was it God that chose the roles of those women by a special act of revelation.

*** As one who believes in sola scritura, I would think special revelation today would be outside the scope of sola scriptura or scriptural authority.

Going back to the issue of widows and remarriage and this issue of women in authoritative roles, if Paul's instructions to the church were not always "this-is-God's-command-for-all-time", it gives freedom to God's people now use godly discernment in interpreting these passages. I see from Paul's instructions to the Corinthians and his instructions to the Ephesians a difference which clearly shows that the instructions regarding widows were not a "this-is-God's-command-for-all-time" matter. Does it follow then, that the strictures against women holding authority or not speaking in the assembly are "this-is-God's-command-for-all-time" issues? If they were, then why do we see God, at times, calling some women to take on authority and to speak with authority? And, if God does indeed at times call some women to take on authority and to speak with authority, might this not be one of those times?

Sorry, I am out of time. For now, yes, I think the Churches must function with male leadership until God overturns his decision. Of course that would be Gods prerogative. I think God made his order for the local Church clear with regard to gender. But at his choice he can overturn any matter of practice and worship he chooses at any time.

 

[handy]

Thanks mondar, for an insightful and well grounded discussion on this topic. I too, am getting pressed for time, but I will study your response.

 

[whirlwind]

whirlwind,

So, your contention is that when Paul IS addressing WOMEN, what he REALLY meant was MEN? While expounding upon the PLACE of women, he suddenly went OFF tangent and began to speak 'metaphorically'? Wow.

No, he isn't addressing just men or just women. My contention is....Paul is addressing the woman. The woman is all of us and we are the wife or bride of Christ. The same "woman" written of in.....

Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Who is "they" that will feed her? The witnesses...the man child. Is that "the man" she/we should not have authority over? :yes

But let's SEE:

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9In 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;

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

11Let lthe woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Notice that it changed from women, plural, to "the woman." From men to "the man."

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

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

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

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Where you 'came up' with your discernment of what is offered here is 'beyond me'. Paul is OBVIOUSLY talking about FEMALES. There is NOTHING metaphoric ABOUT what he is offering. If that's the case, then we could simply MAKE up whatever we CHOSE to and attribute it to HIDDEN messages that it takes 'someone SPECIAL' to interpret.

I don't believe that anyone will have a difficult time recognizing that what you have stated has absolutely NO validity so far as TRUTH is concerned. Note: Paul explains how WOMEN are to dress and behave. It even goes so far as to point out that Adam was FIRST formed and THEN Eve and that SHE was the transgressor through deception.

I don't know what your 'agenda is' but that you have offered 'false prophecy' is without DOUBT.

Blessings,

MEC

I'm sorry you feel that way. :verysad

 

[Fembot]

 

[John]

 

[turnorburn]

 

[whirlwind]

I assume that is directed my way? If yes, then please ask yourself why our Father bothers with women at all? Why does He lead, guide and direct their lives if they should simply sit quietly at home while their husband....no matter how inept he may be at the Word of God, is the one they allow to teach them? Do you really believe that is the meaning of what is written? Please open your eyes and SEE what is there. God is no respecter of persons, there is "neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3:28]

The woman (all men and women) are to be, and are now being, taught by the Spirit.....

John 14:26 But the Comforter, Which is the Holy Ghost, Whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Not some man at the pulpit. Not the husband of the little wife but...The Spirit, The Comforter is our teacher.

Galatians 4:1-2 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

Those that the Spirit teaches, heirs to our Father, servants of our Father are being taught. That is both genders.

1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (12) Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Your thinking conflicts with scripture and is not accurate. It is what is taught because it is the letter but...."the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." [2 Corinthians 3:6] It is the same understanding those of Islam have, those that don't allow females to go to school, those that make them walk around in shrouds. That is not the message of our Father.

 

[mondar]

God is no respecter of persons, there is "neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3:28]

Galatians 3:28 is a great passage. It speaks of soteriological equality between races, genders, and economic status. I am a gentile, but am just as saved as a Jewish believer. My wife is a believer, and is just as saved as me. Soteriological equality does not necessarily imply that identical roles will be given. How many gentile apostles were there? I believe the number was 0. All of them were Jewish. Does this mean that I, as a gentile, am not soteriologically equal to the Jews? Absolutely not. God assigned Jews to the role and office of apostle, but I am going to the same heaven, and am just as saved as those 12 or 13 Jewish men. This however, does not mean that Gentiles must have the same role, or the same office as the Jews. Soteriological equality does not imply identical roles in the Church. Just the same, God can choose an episcopate of males, a priesthood of males, or an apostlet of Jews, but non of this is a violation of the soteriological principle found in Galatians 3:28.

Please look at the context of Galatians 3:28 and answer this question. Is it a context expressing soteriology equality, or is it a context about Church roles?

 

[whirlwind]

God is no respecter of persons, there is "neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3:28]

Galatians 3:28 is a great passage. It speaks of soteriological equality between races, genders, and economic status. I am a gentile, but am just as saved as a Jewish believer. My wife is a believer, and is just as saved as me. Soteriological equality does not necessarily imply that identical roles will be given. How many gentile apostles were there? I believe the number was 0. All of them were Jewish. Does this mean that I, as a gentile, am not soteriologically equal to the Jews? Absolutely not. God assigned Jews to the role and office of apostle, but I am going to the same heaven, and am just as saved as those 12 or 13 Jewish men. This however, does not mean that Gentiles must have the same role, or the same office as the Jews. Soteriological equality does not imply identical roles in the Church. Just the same, God can choose an episcopate of males, a priesthood of males, or an apostlet of Jews, but non of this is a violation of the soteriological principle found in Galatians 3:28.

Please look at the context of Galatians 3:28 and answer this question. Is it a context expressing soteriology equality, or is it a context about Church roles?

It doesn't matter for the point is we are all the same to Him. :yes The "church" is us...all of us.

On another issue, only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the house of Judah) are Jewish. All other tribes are the house of Israel and are not Jews. All twelve are Israel but ten are the house of Israel. My point in saying that is....those ten were scattered by our Father and they/we don't know who we are. The birthright went to Joseph and his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Where are they? Manasseh means "forgetful" and we are.

Genesis 48:17 And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim,it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.

48:19-20 And his father refused, and said, "I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his young brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. And he blessed them that day, saying, "In thee shall Israel bless, saying, 'God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh:' " and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.

We know His Word is true so...who are the nations that contain the seed of Ephraim and Manasseh for...their's is the birthright.

1 Chronicles 5:1-2 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him cale the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's

They are among the lost sheep but....they are not lost to their Father.

I'm not sure why I brought all of this up but...maybe someone needed to hear it.

I guess my point is, there are many that are of the blood lineage of Israel that don't realize they are. The more important message is....through belief in Him we are of Israel. We are among His chosen. All of us...male, female, Jew, Gentile, etc. And, His Spirit teaches all of us and as we are all His servants then all of us should share what He teaches us with others.