Women cannot have authority in the congregation.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
26,675
3,854
113
#61
I really don't see how you have to submit unless it's by force. Of course, submitting to the Lord is my personal choice as well. You chose well.

Definition of submit

transitive verb
1a: to yield to governance or authority

ntransitive verb

1a: to yield oneself to the authority or will of another : SURRENDER

2: to defer to or consent to abide by the opinion or authority of another

You were correct the first comment.............to submit is a CHOICE one makes..........it is NOT a requirement.....

God does not require people to submit to His Will, He desires that they do............(Calvinists excluded I guess) and He calls them to, BUT it is their choice..............AND A GOOD ONE I might add........ :)
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
26,675
3,854
113
#62
Oh, but it is by force. Not force applied by my Lord, but force applied by me to deny myself.
That is not "by force," it is by your choice.................
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
26,675
3,854
113
#63
For the sake of hermeneutics I feel obligated to remind you that Paul is saying that Jesus spoke about divorce.. We can read about it in the Gospels. This was why he said The Command of the Lord and then when he says he spoke by permission he is saying there is no teaching that Jesus gave for this particular example but then he makes a point that he has the Spirit of the Lord. So Paul reminds you that even though he is speaking about something that Jesus did not teach about Paul has the Holy Spirit inspiring him and you should hear it as though you were hearing from the Spirit of the Lord. Paul NEVER intended anyone to interpret it as "Oh that's just Paul's opinion and we don't have to follow it if we don't like it."
You might want to study Scripture a wee bit more IF you think Christ did not teach on divorce........

and, yes, his Epistles (even when he was giving his opinions) were Holy Spirit inspired.......however, are not most Teachers/Preachers Holy Spirit inspired when they offer their opinions on a certain subject? Personally, I always pray before writing a Bible Study or some such, and even when I am offering an opinion on subjects from Scripture such as this one dealing with women.......

That last part is simply untrue............all one has to do is carefully read his Epistles to see why. Start with his comments on marriage and how he would rather all men be like him................there are other examples as well, which is why it is VERY IMPORTANT to read his Epistles with understanding.............
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
26,675
3,854
113
#64
Well, the thing is that you are right, but the majority is not believing it. So you cant convince them..
Dont be discouraged to believe the word of God.
and the lack of understanding continues................folks seem to not remember to whom Paul was speaking to in Corinth, and the situation there, and the peoples there................understanding all of that sheds a real light on his True intentions for what he spoke.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
26,675
3,854
113
#65
IMPO..................only

this whole problem of men v. women that today's Churches are caught up in boils down to what Paul taught about "carnal" v. "spiritual" Christians...............BOTH are saved!!!!!!

However, the "carnal" believer still sees Scripture through their earthly eyes, while the "spiritual" believer sees Scripture through their spiritual eyes.........there's a HUGE difference in Scriptural meaning between the two views.

The best example of this IMO is found in Galatians...........

Galatians, Chapter 3:

27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

THIS IS HOW GOD SEES HIS CHILDREN once they are saved...................and God WILL call whom He will for what purpose He has willed them for regardless if they are man or woman...........and THAT is the Spiritual Truth of Scripture..............

John, Chapter 4:

24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Folks can agree/disagree and they will, one way or the other, but the inspiration I have received through years of prayer, study, and fellowship with other sincere students of Scripture tell me this is Truth.

There is coming a day when all will know............................one way or the other, but as for me and my house, we will worship our God IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH........
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,887
662
113
#66
and the lack of understanding continues................folks seem to not remember to whom Paul was speaking to in Corinth, and the situation there, and the peoples there................understanding all of that sheds a real light on his True intentions for what he spoke.
If this was only for the corinthians believers why then it is written in die bible?
And what about 1. Tim. 2, 11-13?
It seems to me that people accept the word of God so long it fits in their View. Verses which dont fits will be ignored ore explained away.
 

Corban

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2020
704
273
63
69
#68
This has been debated and debated and debated here. The OP isn't married and has nothing to offer in the conversation.
Maybe. But is censure based on open person's judgment of him the way to go. You promote the very thing you supposedly contend for - that is, to silence a segment of the Christians. In the Church we have all types - some baby Christians, some ornery, some vessels of dishonor, some downright divisive. But on what basis can one self-elected person decide who may post and who may not. Is it not better to ignore the provocateur than selectively silence our brethren?

But I have a question for you. The verses he brought, the language is plain and unambiguous. Could you give a short exegesis on them. Maybe why the Holy Spirit spoke them. Thanks.
 

Corban

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2020
704
273
63
69
#69
It is wrong and distasteful, especially for unmarried men, to insert oneself between a husband and his wife.
The husband and wife can work these things out with Jesus. They don't need unmarried men (or other strange men) trying to lord over the wife (and in doing this, they are ironically usurping and disrespecting the husband). That's what these things generally come down to.
My posting was against banning individuals from posting. You did not address that. Rather you addressed to OP. Have you got something personal against me, or if you are in favor of banning immature Christians, just say so. I accept your opinion, even if it seems despotic. That is the essence of 1st Corinthians 14. Let all speak, but do so with the goal of edifying the Church. If one seems to be contentious, a barrage of OUR silence will have the best effect.
 

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,286
2,034
113
#70
My posting was against banning individuals from posting. You did not address that. Rather you addressed to OP. Have you got something personal against me, or if you are in favor of banning immature Christians, just say so. I accept your opinion, even if it seems despotic. That is the essence of 1st Corinthians 14. Let all speak, but do so with the goal of edifying the Church. If one seems to be contentious, a barrage of OUR silence will have the best effect.
@Corban my post wasn't meant against you.
My point was against a certain type of men that usually starts these threads, and how the threads themselves progress, as people get bolder and bolder.

What I pointed out as problem, is the disorderly desire of some to lord over women that they aren't married to. I believe it's out of place, and that's what the thread often boils down to: some want to not just discuss, but rather affect female believers here. I suppose, that's just my opinion... Of course. But there is not one Scripture that tells men to assert authority over women they aren't married to. Unless they are her pastor/elder in church (in which case he has a certain place to say certain things), or her dad (if she lives under her dad's roof still).

I believe it's a lot better for men to build their character, and their qualities and ability to lead will be naturally recognized by THEIR OWN wife without them needing to threaten with Scriptures to achieve it, they just need to keep being their wise selves and follow Jesus - the rest happens on its own. As a married woman, I can attest to this.

From that perspective, I find it odd that some strange men from online forums or YouTube or other places come and try to assert themselves, wanting to command women here, yet he isn't our husband, or our pastor. I disagree when a man teaches what dynamics should be going on in our marriages, when they are not married. It was said in the Bible for a reason that a bishop, who does have some say over the congregation, needs to be married. Yet one will not see a bishop insert himself between husband and wife in this way, one rather might hear sermons with Biblical recommendation on mutual love and submission, and giving example with his own marriage.

These people are acting out of place and out of order, and in fact trampling the husbands in an unruly way. Not everyone who says something on the matter does it. But often, that's what it comes down to. I hope I explained myself better. :)
 

Corban

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2020
704
273
63
69
#71
That is not "by force," it is by your choice.................
  • My choice - an act of will
  • Force - power applied to realize that act of will
Maybe this will explain it. Our Lord Jesus in Gethsemane is faced with a choice. His Father's will that He face the worst, or His own that the cup pass from Him. He chooses the Father's will. Where did the hematidrosis - the sweating of blood - come from? Our Lord Jesus violently suppressed His will in the face of extreme suffering. Or the martyrs. Sure it was an act of will, but having a stake driven up into your mouth, being covered in pitch and set alight to brighten Nero's garden party, needs extreme force against the self-preservation instinct.
 

Corban

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2020
704
273
63
69
#72
@Corban my post wasn't meant against you.
My point was against a certain type of men that usually starts these threads, and how the threads themselves progress, as people get bolder and bolder.

What I pointed out as problem, is the disorderly desire of some to lord over women that they aren't married to. I believe it's out of place, and that's what the thread often boils down to: some want to not just discuss, but rather affect female believers here. I suppose, that's just my opinion... Of course. But there is not one Scripture that tells men to assert authority over women they aren't married to. Unless they are her pastor/elder in church (in which case he has a certain place to say certain things), or her dad (if she lives under her dad's roof still).

I believe it's a lot better for men to build their character, and their qualities and ability to lead will be naturally recognized by THEIR OWN wife without them needing to threaten with Scriptures to achieve it, they just need to keep being their wise selves and follow Jesus - the rest happens on its own. As a married woman, I can attest to this.

From that perspective, I find it odd that some strange men from online forums or YouTube or other places come and try to assert themselves, wanting to command women here, yet he isn't our husband, or our pastor. I disagree when a man teaches what dynamics should be going on in our marriages, when they are not married. It was said in the Bible for a reason that a bishop, who does have some say over the congregation, needs to be married. Yet one will not see a bishop insert himself between husband and wife in this way, one rather might hear sermons with Biblical recommendation on mutual love and submission, and giving example with his own marriage.

These people are acting out of place and out of order, and in fact trampling the husbands in an unruly way. Not everyone who says something on the matter does it. But often, that's what it comes down to. I hope I explained myself better. :)
I hear you. There is nothing I can disagree with. Go well and God bless.
 
Mar 21, 2009
1,931
743
113
New York
#73
You might want to study Scripture a wee bit more IF you think Christ did not teach on divorce........

and, yes, his Epistles (even when he was giving his opinions) were Holy Spirit inspired.......however, are not most Teachers/Preachers Holy Spirit inspired when they offer their opinions on a certain subject? Personally, I always pray before writing a Bible Study or some such, and even when I am offering an opinion on subjects from Scripture such as this one dealing with women.......

That last part is simply untrue............all one has to do is carefully read his Epistles to see why. Start with his comments on marriage and how he would rather all men be like him................there are other examples as well, which is why it is VERY IMPORTANT to read his Epistles with understanding.............
My first sentence was..".For the sake of hermeneutics I feel obligated to remind you that Paul is saying that Jesus spoke about divorce.. "

That is what he mean when he said the commandment of the Lord. Here is the commandment of Jesus that Paul was talking about....
Matt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, savingfor the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: andwhosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The things where Paul said "I not the Lord" does not mean that he is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. It means he does not have a Command from Jesus on that but what he is saying is from the Holy Spirit. We know this because he says...
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, and then everything that he says between 25-39 he concludes with ....40
But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

So we see that, yes, the advice to stay single is optional, but the advice is FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT. Please remember that when talking about these instructions. It is the HOLY SPIRIT that is saying "but she is happier if she so abide after my judgment" it is the Holy Spirit through Paul that is giving this advice, it is not just Paul speaking without the Holy Spirit. That is an important detail.

The idea that anything that he said after I do not have a commandment of the Lord is just Paul's opinion is not the correct way to interpret these comments.

When he says that you should not put away an unbelieving mate who is willing to stay it is NOT TRUE that you can ignore this advice and put her away if you feel like it because after all he said...
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
In order to interpret But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: in verse 12 correctly you must understand that he is saying that Jesus did not specifically talk about putting away an unbelieving wife who was willing to stay with you but Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is telling you not to. And you DO NOT have a right to ignore Paul's Holy Spirit inspired words here and put her away if you feel like it. Most will agree with that and therefore they must carry the same interpretation of But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: throughout the rest of the chapter. He is simply saying when he says these words that Jesus did not speak on this specifically but Paul has the Holy Spirit and can address it as though Jesus were speaking on it now.

The instructions ...But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. Means that she can marry if she wants and is not sinning if she does but the Holy Spirit is saying she will be happier if she so abide after Pauls judgement. It is not saying that Paul might be wrong about this.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
#74
Even YOU don't know what you just wrote. :)
I am not you. ;) Who creates creates wonderments as lying signs.:eek: The hair covering does not produce a lying wonder. Its prophecy. No need to wonder.

Did you even try to seek the understanding of the parable ?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
#75
My first sentence was..".For the sake of hermeneutics I feel obligated to remind you that Paul is saying that Jesus spoke about divorce.. "

That is what he mean when he said the commandment of the Lord. Here is the commandment of Jesus that Paul was talking about....
Matt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, savingfor the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: andwhosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The things where Paul said "I not the Lord" does not mean that he is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. It means he does not have a Command from Jesus on that but what he is saying is from the Holy Spirit. We know this because he says...
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, and then everything that he says between 25-39 he concludes with ....40
But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

So we see that, yes, the advice to stay single is optional, but the advice is FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT. Please remember that when talking about these instructions. It is the HOLY SPIRIT that is saying "but she is happier if she so abide after my judgment" it is the Holy Spirit through Paul that is giving this advice, it is not just Paul speaking without the Holy Spirit. That is an important detail.

The idea that anything that he said after I do not have a commandment of the Lord is just Paul's opinion is not the correct way to interpret these comments.

When he says that you should not put away an unbelieving mate who is willing to stay it is NOT TRUE that you can ignore this advice and put her away if you feel like it because after all he said...
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
In order to interpret But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: in verse 12 correctly you must understand that he is saying that Jesus did not specifically talk about putting away an unbelieving wife who was willing to stay with you but Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is telling you not to. And you DO NOT have a right to ignore Paul's Holy Spirit inspired words here and put her away if you feel like it. Most will agree with that and therefore they must carry the same interpretation of But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: throughout the rest of the chapter. He is simply saying when he says these words that Jesus did not speak on this specifically but Paul has the Holy Spirit and can address it as though Jesus were speaking on it now.

The instructions ...But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. Means that she can marry if she wants and is not sinning if she does but the Holy Spirit is saying she will be happier if she so abide after Pauls judgement. It is not saying that Paul might be wrong about this.
Paul is speaking from the vantage point of the chaste virgin bride the church . God divorced Israel ( the non born again outward Jew ) . And married the gentiles all the nations. Renaming her Christian to represent all the nations of the world .
The new law is then established "do not separate what God calls together as one" .Again all the nations .

Both marriage and remaining a virgin, not married. . are gifts as in; what do we have that we have not received.?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,146
8,223
113
#76
I am not you. ;) Who creates creates wonderments as lying signs.:eek: The hair covering does not produce a lying wonder. Its prophecy. No need to wonder.
Wow... your confusion is just getting deeper and more obvious.

Did you even try to seek the understanding of the parable ?
It's not a parable.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
#77
Wow... your confusion is just getting deeper and more obvious.


It's not a parable.

its Not a parable to those who wonder. Parables (prophecy) unravel mysteries . You as it seems turn them into wonderments. They remain wonderful mysteries then. Its there that men do not see the things that are not there, and imagine thing are. "wonderland" The sign of a drunkard . The hit me but I did not feel it.

Parable teach us how to walk by faith the unseen will of faith the law of faith. The golden measure.

While still in a state of wonderment having the understanding hid .Jesus gave another parable. This time the apostles thought Jesus went off the deep end and began the search of a better teacher .Playing who is the Alfa dog "the greatest".
At the end of the series of parable (prophecy) . Jesus rebuked them that wondered rather than believing the prophecy. Informing them they knew not what manner of "faithless" spirit they were of.

Wondering, amazement, marveling is not believing prophecy. It can turn into lying wonders accompanied with a strong delusion from God so that men might continue to wonder"? marvel ? Be amused to death ?.

Why not simply define the parables (the signified tongue of God?)

Luke 9: 43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples, Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying. Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
.
They must of thought Jesus went off the deep end as it seems you attribute to me. Should Jesus look for a better teacher and get some Christian counseling?
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
15,303
3,227
113
#78
Maybe. But is censure based on open person's judgment of him the way to go. You promote the very thing you supposedly contend for - that is, to silence a segment of the Christians. In the Church we have all types - some baby Christians, some ornery, some vessels of dishonor, some downright divisive. But on what basis can one self-elected person decide who may post and who may not. Is it not better to ignore the provocateur than selectively silence our brethren?

But I have a question for you. The verses he brought, the language is plain and unambiguous. Could you give a short exegesis on them. Maybe why the Holy Spirit spoke them. Thanks.

Ok, maybe people here haven't been clear enough, so I'll give it another try. It's been done, to death, stick a fork in it and call it a day. People come in here on blast and we of the old guard are kinda getting sick of it. We've discussed every angle of this issue. You and the OP can go read up on them and argue over there. As I said, the OP isn't married and has nothing to bring to the conversation. I don't have kids and I don't run around telling people who do how to raise them. Same goes here.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,146
8,223
113
#79
its Not a parable to those who wonder. Parables (prophecy) unravel mysteries . You as it seems turn them into wonderments. They remain wonderful mysteries then. Its there that men do not see the things that are not there, and imagine thing are. "wonderland" The sign of a drunkard . The hit me but I did not feel it.

Parable teach us how to walk by faith the unseen will of faith the law of faith. The golden measure.

While still in a state of wonderment having the understanding hid .Jesus gave another parable. This time the apostles thought Jesus went off the deep end and began the search of a better teacher .Playing who is the Alfa dog "the greatest".
At the end of the series of parable (prophecy) . Jesus rebuked them that wondered rather than believing the prophecy. Informing them they knew not what manner of "faithless" spirit they were of.

Wondering, amazement, marveling is not believing prophecy. It can turn into lying wonders accompanied with a strong delusion from God so that men might continue to wonder"? marvel ? Be amused to death ?.

Why not simply define the parables (the signified tongue of God?)

Luke 9: 43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples, Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying. Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
.
They must of thought Jesus went off the deep end as it seems you attribute to me. Should Jesus look for a better teacher and get some Christian counseling?
You don't pay attention to what I write; you just accuse me of holding ridiculous beliefs because I challenge your ridiculous statements. You can't quote me to prove your assertions, but you keep making them anyway. That makes you a slanderer. I think it's about time you were banned from this site.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
#80
You don't pay attention to what I write; you just accuse me of holding ridiculous beliefs because I challenge your ridiculous statements. You can't quote me to prove your assertions, but you keep making them anyway. That makes you a slanderer. I think it's about time you were banned from this site.
Whatever works for you.

I have been paying attention. Without parables Christ spoke not deliberately . . purposely to teach us how to walk by faith (the unseen). Hiding the understanding as prophecy the gospel from those who walk after wondering marveling walking by sight as a form of amusement . The foundation of Paganism .out of sight out of mind . . First it was the tongue of God is not prophecy so that you could keep the lying wonder .I made a noise and fell backward. "Nothing proves nothing. And now parables are not prophecy making them nothing that proves nothing. .

Why did Christ hide the meaning in prophecy called parables if it was not to teach us how to walk by faith . His faith as a labor of love working in us?