|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 12:13:35 PM
|
|
|
sadiebelle
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Northern California
Status: offline
|
quote:
The bible is a unified revelations of God's word. Good doctrine is based on the entire word. No good doctrine is ever based on just one passage of scripture. One should be able to pull out an entire book of the bible and good doctrine will still be adequately supported by the rest of the bible. Actually, if we are talking about the church, the church, i.e. Christians is a new Testiment topic. We can look to the prophets and we can look at the shadowings of Christ in the OT but concerning the church as we know it, is found in the NT.
quote:
The prohibition of women as a whole teaching or being in authority is based completely on one possible interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Proof texts are then pulled out of context from other scripture to support that interpretation. Without the passage in 1 Timothy 2 or a bias based on one interpretation of that passage the prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no support in scripture. You said, "or being in authority". We can support "being in authority over men" with Scripture about submissiveness to men ALL OVER the Bible, as you suggest. It would make sense that you could only find it's relation to the church in the NT. You could look back at the levitacle priesthood, they were all men serving in the tabernacle, but that's not an accurate picture of church AFTER Christ's death.
quote:
Also, all true doctrine found in the New Testament has a firm foundation in the Old Testament. The prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no foundation in the Old Testament. In fact, the Old Testament supports women teaching and being in authority.
If we are going to discuss prohetesses again, i.e. Deborah, it's like comparing apples and oranges in my opinion.
< Message edited by sadiebelle -- 4/21/2005 12:49:19 PM >
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prone to wander Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love
Here's my heart O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above ~ Come Thou Fount
|
|
|
|
RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread - 4/21/2005 12:18:32 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2690
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved
Everything that Jesus taught and did blew away everything used by both men and women to belittle each other. But where does Jesus ever say or do anything that tears down or criticizes the order of creation in which men bear a primary responsibility to lead, protect and sustain? I see nowhere in scripture where Christ did this. I see nowhere where Jesus opposed the loving headship of husbands or the limitation of the office of eldership to Godly men. Jesus must have favored eldership of only men in the church. He never spoke against it and again chose 12 men for his apostles.
Jesus always spoke clearly against the very things that needed to be changed, yet I find nowhere where he chastises nor changes this.
Jesus did purge leadership of pride and exalting of oneself and that he honored women greatly as persons worthy of the highest respect of God, but he did not change what Paul is speaking of in the several passages we have looked at.
Of course women should not be excluded from ministry. There are many ministries open to men and women, the issue is whether any of the women serving with Paul fulfilled roles that would be inconsistent with a limitation of the ledership to men. From what I read in scripture, no they did not.
Paul said that Euodia and Syntyche "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers"(Phil. 4:2-3) There is honor given for their ministry but no grounds for saying that the nature of their ministry went against the limitations that are in 1 Timothy 2:12.
If that were the case and it could be said that they did in fact go against 1 Timothy 2:12 then Paul would have siad that the "deacons" mentioned in Phil. 1:1 with the "overseers" were fellow workers while he was there. But he doesn't.
This is the best post you've ever made IMO.
_____________________________
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 12:31:40 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2690
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
I keep seeing this statement about removing the Timothy passage, and I am curious on what hermeneutical principles can it be removed from consideration? I'm asking sincerely. Let's hear it.
I ask that as someone who has studied hermeneutics and Greek, and has studied the Bible for decades. When I apply the principles of Prostestant Biblical interpretation, I cannot rule out the instruction in Timothy as one that is cultural or situational. It is in keeping with much throughout the scriptures. So even if you did take it out, women did not have formal authority over men with regard to things of the Lord, except only in exceptional situations. Otherwise, it just didn't happen.
And byhisgrace is right. Jesus Himself did nothing to change that. He was pretty clear about what He thought too. I do see that He does not denigrate women and in fact elevates them. Paul elevated them as well to the status they should have had all along which is one of honor and respect, and that means respect of their knowledge and opinions as well. Just because someone is not the leader of something does not mean that their knowledge and opinions are not considered very important. I can't think of too many men (read that wise men) who don't very much consider their wives' opinions -- many times above their own.
_____________________________
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 12:45:14 PM
|
|
|
i_believe
Posts: 1299
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
since most agreed on page 1 that women will prophesy and did prophesy ...How is it possible that they can do this without authority?...
There is an inherent authority/permission to use a gift that God has given but the context (how, when, to whom, etc.) is not open to the whim and fancy of the one receiving the gift. The permission to use a gift does not imply authority over those to whom you serve with the gift. That is a separate authority based on many scriptures in the NT regarding authority and leadership in the NT church(es). The gift of teaching in no way implies that you can assume authority over those receiving the teaching or that you can presume to teach those whom the scripture do not permit you to teach. Primarily women may not teach doctrine or have authority over a man in regards to the church(es) of God.
Some have asked if that would preclude her from authority over men in the work place. That is not teaching and authority in the context of the church(es) of God, so I see no problem with it.
_____________________________
Grace and Peace,
IB
Phi 3:12 Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread - 4/21/2005 12:53:10 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2871
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
But where does Jesus ever say or do anything that tears down or criticizes the order of creation in which men bear a primary responsibility to lead, protect and sustain? I see nowhere in scripture where Christ did this.
Where in scripture is it stated that men have this primary responsibility? I see nowhere in scripture where men have been given such a responsibility.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 1:19:07 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2871
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
You really believe 1 Timothy 2 is the only Scripture on this subject? Do I really have to bring up 1 Cor. 14 or 1 Peter 3?
1 Cor 14:33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.
This has been mentioned many times. The word for "silent" is not a word that denotes permanent or total silence. It is carries the idea of "hushed". Paul was speaking of disorder in the church. I've also read in many places that theologians do not know what "Law" Paul is referring to as there is no such Old Testament or Jewish law. He may be referring to a Corinthian law. In which case Paul could be admonishing them to follow the law of the land in this regard in order to not bring reproach upon the church there.
The first part of 1 Peter 3 is addressed to wives and husbands. Paul speaks about how wives and husbands should treat each other. He sums it up in verse 8 and 9.
1 Peter 3:8To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; 9not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.
This has nothing to do with prohibiting women speaking in church or having authority.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 1:21:30 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2690
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
The problem comes in when someone sees something as being taken away. Nothing has been taken away from women by saying that they are not to teach doctrine to a man who is of the church or have authority as a spiritual leader over a man who is of the church. What needs to be seen is that women have never been granted this. It is not theirs -- never has been. There is only one exceptional case, and even then it was a quasi civl authority, and not a woman being part of the priesthood.
Yes, I believe if something happened once, it can happen again. But that's an exception and not something to set a rule by especially when we have plain words from Paul to the contrary. God had an ass speak to someone. That wasn't the norm either. Are we going to make a rule out of that?
As to God granting men the responsibility to be leaders, it is patently obvious from what was done (choosing only men in positions of utmost leadership: all the apostles, all the elders chosen, all the authors of scripture, God's holding Adam to account and also Paul referencing Adam, and on and on and on). And what evidence is there to counter that? Deborah in the OT? The time of the judges? When the Hebrews experienced some of their most apostate activity? Or a few people who were giving service in the NT church? Thin. Thin enough to strain tea.
Hey, I do believe there are exceptions, and I believe they still occur today, but that's just it -- they're exceptions.
What women should see is that they have lots of freedom. They can teach to others besides men in the church (not a huge group from what I understand LOL!!!), and they can share and testify and reveal and relate and encourage others (men or women). There are a whole host of things open to women. They are not to be spiritual leaders (which includes teaching) to men in the church. So what? Why is this seen as such a horrible limitation?
_____________________________
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 1:25:56 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2690
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
I'm going to reiterate that I do not agree with the interpretation that women are to be silent at all times in the assembly. That interpretation is in conflict with women praying and prophesying. It does not agree with believers exercising the gifts in the assembly. I like Grudem's assessment of this, but it's a little too hairy to repeat here. Read chapter 6 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, pp 142-144.
_____________________________
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 1:34:01 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2690
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
We disagree.
_____________________________
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Moving on... - 4/21/2005 1:34:44 PM
|
|
|
joint heir
Posts: 58
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
If you can agree that there are exceptions then how can you say that there was a rule to begin with? Unless God's rules can be broken....He either says something or He doesn't ....How do we tru | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
T 
...we both have a lot of words.... 