Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

  • 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.

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,724
1,379
113
Garee, did you read the post to which I responded? Or did you just respond to my question as if it came out of thin air? It certainly seems like the latter, and further, it seems like you saw some words and went off on your own tangent. Please try to stick with the thread of the conversation.
It was just a question as to the purpose of a what I thought how a unmarried woman or man would fit into the Pastoral work as a family affair. I added my understanding. Sorry if I offended nothing personal.

We are to call no man Teacher on earth one is our Master in heaven . .Male against female as in flesh and blood against flesh and blood can only end up devouring one another into extinction.. The goal of the devil who hates human flesh

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

We wrestle against the things not seen the eternal not the temporal.

I would offer. The gift of teaching must first be defined. Its the key that unlocks the rest of the doctrine as to how it is administered it will fall into place.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
14,062
7,577
113
It was just a question as to the purpose of a what I thought how a unmarried woman or man would fit into the Pastoral work as a family affair. I added my understanding. Sorry if I offended nothing personal.
The post to which I responded said, "... the purpose of a woman is her husband." My post asked, "So an unmarried woman has no purpose?" You responded with "I would say the same as an unmarried man."

So you're saying that an unmarried man has no purpose. Do you see the problem? You haven't answered my question, and your comment doesn't come anywhere near addressing the reason why I asked my question. It's not that your comments are "wrong", but rather that you read what I wrote, took three steps sideways, and responded to an unrelated issue that is not presently on the table.
 

TheIndianGirl

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
328
262
63
God's purpose for the woman was to be the man's helper (actually strong ally and lifesaver). I'm not saying women don't perform other roles, but the purpose of a woman is her husband.
What if the husband is supportive of his wife being pastor and tells her to pursue her calling? And men in the congregation are fine with her being a pastor? I agree husband is head of household and so I do not see a conflict if he is fine with the wife being pastor or gives his wife leadership roles in the marriage. I've encountered a handful of female pastors and they are in happy marriages with supportive/proud husbands.
Also, purpose of any woman is not her husband. There is no commandment to get married. Paul did not even push marriage except if one has uncontrollable lust.

Please post some examples of female elders. A pastor is essentially a teaching elder.
Phoebe was a deacon. Priscilla was a teacher.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
You interpreted my point exactly backwards.

I am not saying that Paul's words are about cultural practices of the time, and therefore they are irrelevant to us, which is clearly what you think I'm saying.

Rather, I'm saying that understanding the culture of Timothy's Ephesus is critical to understanding Paul's words to him. If the reader divorces Paul's words from their cultural context, they will inevitably conclude that Paul is using an argument from creation to justify the prohibition on women teaching men.
Nope.
A woman can not have authority over a man because man was created first and woman second; that's simply what Paul is saying and no culture can change that starting with the culture of Adam and Eve all the way to our current cultures even though nowadays it seems that women are usurping authority but this is going against what God did and this is exactly what Paul is warning in these verses.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,724
1,379
113
The post to which I responded said, "... the purpose of a woman is her husband." My post asked, "So an unmarried woman has no purpose?" You responded with "I would say the same as an unmarried man."

So you're saying that an unmarried man has no purpose. Do you see the problem? You haven't answered my question, and your comment doesn't come anywhere near addressing the reason why I asked my question. It's not that your comments are "wrong", but rather that you read what I wrote, took three steps sideways, and responded to an unrelated issue that is not presently on the table.
I get what you are asking and offered the purpose of the unmarried man and woman.

No, I am saying a unmarried man and woman have the same purpose of planting the gospel seed .The pastoral work is a "family affair."

If married a person can start their pastoral ministry and follow the law . When two or three are gathered together in his name as it is written He is in the midst. two or three make up a sect of denomination of the whole church the bride.

1 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV) This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children (unmarried) in subjection with all gravity;
 

TheIndianGirl

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
328
262
63
If church leaders are really serious about not having women pastors, women should not be allowed to obtain MDiv degrees (which is the degree track for pastor). It makes no sense for seminaries to allow women to get MDiv degrees and then say, no they cannot be pastors. Even Liberty University, one of the more conservative Christian universities in the U.S., allows M.Div degrees for women. But, I guess it will hurt their wallets...
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
14,062
7,577
113
Nope.
A woman can not have authority over a man because man was created first and woman second; that's simply what Paul is saying and no culture can change that starting with the culture of Adam and Eve all the way to our current cultures even though nowadays it seems that women are usurping authority but this is going against what God did and this is exactly what Paul is warning in these verses.
Wow... you're still completely missing the point. Prior creation of Adam is not a sound reason to prohibit women from teaching men. You're reading the "for" as "for the reason that" and that is not the only way to interpret it.

By the way, the words "usurp authority" are a terrible and biased translation of authentein.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
Now we see the real you. I shall not feed you any further. God saves those who hate women, all they have to do after showing that of themselves is to humble their trolling energy and ask forgiveness. God see's and hears you all, the trinity of you. per the likes that follow your refusal to actually learn the scriptures and what God actually has to say. Three in one? Or one of three? "We are legion"?
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
We must be careful on how we say we hear. Remember Paul before His conversation had the best of best school and teachers that ended up giving him a false zeal for knowing God.. And with that teaching came the murdering and torturing of Christians.

I would agree God puts no difference in gender when it comes to Teaching. The gift of teaching must be defined. Men and woman can plant the seed and water it with the word of God. But the Holy Spirit does not share His infallibility with us. We can teach how to hear sharing the hermeneutics principles needed to hear Him but he must do the work as the one and only Master. No man can serve two Masters, the corrupted flesh and the Holy Spirit.

He does the teaching comforting and he who lives in us brings to our memory the things he has taught . In that way his name is Jealous and will not share that glory with the creature as that called a Daysman . A Daysman is a fleshly infallible umpire set between God not seen and man seen. Like the Pope. Even Jesus would not stand in that Holy Place when called Good Master .When accused of being a daysman (Good Master) he replied. . . One is Good, eternal God not seen . Call no man on earth Teacher and in the same way call no man on earth father. .

We are warned of the anti christs(many) they say a man must teach us. It reveals the motive of operation for the antichrists the many who were already there.

‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. Mathew 23: 8-10

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.Mathew 19: 16-17

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.1 John 2:26-27

I would say what God calls "one" let no man separate . The result of the garden. Put a wedge between man and woman .The gospel that which unites
One can argue with scripture against what is written all they like.
God did not separate man and woman, as has been repeatedly observed in the new testament scriptures often posted, often ignored.
And when one woman and one man wed, they are one. Not separate. They are co-equal partners in union under God. As was spoken before the Gospel and in the old testament.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
I think you are not understanding the significance of what is being said. God says that certain roles are prohibited for a woman. A woman (e.g. female pastor) claims that God has called her to that position. Then logically, 1 of the following must be true:

1) God didn't say that the role of pastor was prohibited for women
2) God did say that the role of pastor was prohibited for women, but then changed His mind
3) God did say that the role of pastor was prohibited for women, and the woman is mistaken (either she is a deceiver and is lying, as no-one called her, or she is deceived, as another spirit called her)

We argue against 1, based on the divine inspiration of scripture. If you throw out any, you must throw out all.

We argue against 2, as God does not change His mind, and He has given no revelation in His word that the prohibition on women pastors is removed.

The only choice we can accept is 3, that women pastors are either deceived (consistent with scripture), or active deceivers. Evidence that 3 is correct can be seen in all women pastors I have read about.
No, no , He doesn't.
God is not a man that He should lie. That's scripture too.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
1 Tim 2:11A womana must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man;b she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

1 Cor 11:
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.


7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority ona her head, because of the angels.

Eph 5:
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

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

28In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. 30For we are members of His body.b

31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”c 32This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.

Gen 2:
23And the man said:
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man she was taken.”
24For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

So, Paul uses Genesis/creation to argue the authority of the man over a woman/wife but you want to use St. Augustine and Cyril and culture to argue against scripture. You are not going to make it.
You have to use Genesis/creation also to show us why your argument is correct.
Except for the Eve and Adam part, no, those aren't of the Genesis account.
And while the argument as to whether or not Adam was deceived being the passage tells us he was with Eve when she encountered the tempter, the serpent, it was by the man that sin entered the world.

Eve's behavior does not rank up there with that one.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
Except for the Eve and Adam part, no, those aren't of the Genesis account.
Then you are not keen enough
And while the argument as to whether or not Adam was deceived being the passage tells us he was with Eve when she encountered the tempter, the serpent, it was by the man that sin entered the world.

Eve's behavior does not rank up there with that one.
Exactly, while it was Eve who was deceived, the account of sin was put on Adam because he had authority over her wife.
And in the same manner, while it is church (bride) that sinned, the penalty for that sin is on the account of Christ(bride groom) because He has authority over the church and this is salvation. That hierarchy can not change.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
Wow... you're still completely missing the point. Prior creation of Adam is not a sound reason to prohibit women from teaching men. You're reading the "for" as "for the reason that" and that is not the only way to interpret it.

By the way, the words "usurp authority" are a terrible and biased translation of authentein.
You're still stating that i completely missed your point without clarifying how i missed your point.

We don't need culture to understand what Paul was saying. In 1 Cor 11/ 1 Tim 2/ Eph 5, in all these instances, Paul used creation sequence and events around Adam and Eve to argue his points about men and women in congregation and their authorities.
It is clear that creation sequence has a connection to what Paul was saying about men and women, he did not pull it from the air, however, the issue of culture is not part of the scripture, so it can not support scripture. You don't put aside what has been clearly mentioned in the scripture for some other extra-biblical 'knowledge'.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
And it should be added there also that God is no respecter of persons nor shows partiality + the Book of Book of Romans chapter 2.
Therefore, to argue repeatedly that God would not call a woman into an office of service in the Ekklesia, be they Shepherdess, (pastor/minister), prophetess, deacon, bishop, is to speak contrary to what God has already said on the matter. He shows no partiality.
It is simply the issue of authorities established by God. For example:

1. Christ (bridegroom) has authority over the church (bride). Can that change? Never.
2. The Father is greater than the son. Can that change? Never.

In the same manner, a woman can not have authority when it comes to matters spirituality over a man and it will not change.

But can a woman teach? of course yes, Paul has said so. Because she has authority over children both male and female.
A woman can also teach men on other things that are not related to spirituality/ gospel.

But there's also another thing. Jesus appointed those who were to preach the gospel and even though in that group there were women, non was appointed for that role. I also think that all were to meet a brutal ending to their lives as Jesus had said to some.
So yes there were women but there role was not to be on the forefront preaching the gospel. The one who preached the gospel, had to die:

2 Cor 4:
12So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.

13It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” b Since we have that same spirit of c faith, we also believe and therefore speak, 14because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself. 15All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,724
1,379
113
It is simply the issue of authorities established by God. For example:

1. Christ (bridegroom) has authority over the church (bride). Can that change? Never.
2. The Father is greater than the son. Can that change? Never.

In the same manner, a woman can not have authority when it comes to matters spirituality over a man and it will not change.

But can a woman teach? of course yes, Paul has said so. Because she has authority over children both male and female.
A woman can also teach men on other things that are not related to spirituality/ gospel.

But there's also another thing. Jesus appointed those who were to preach the gospel and even though in that group there were women, non was appointed for that role. I also think that all were to meet a brutal ending to their lives as Jesus had said to some.
So yes there were women but there role was not to be on the forefront preaching the gospel. The one who preached the gospel, had to die:

2 Cor 4:
12So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.

13It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” b Since we have that same spirit of c faith, we also believe and therefore speak, 14because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself. 15All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.

The issue of authorities established by God must be defined seeing it does not have to do with lording it over another persons faith or belief. That responsibility is of God the teacher. He does not share that with the creature as if we did need a man to teach us..
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
The issue of authorities established by God must be defined seeing it does not have to do with lording it over another persons faith or belief. That responsibility is of God the teacher. He does not share that with the creature as if we did need a man to teach us..
There are usually God given authorities of which some are inherent in men.
For example: A father is greater than the son/ A mother is greater than the daughter
Same thing applies to men and women; i never meant sharing authorities with God.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
Then you are not keen enough


Exactly, while it was Eve who was deceived, the account of sin was put on Adam because he had authority over her wife.
And in the same manner, while it is church (bride) that sinned, the penalty for that sin is on the account of Christ(bride groom) because He has authority over the church and this is salvation. That hierarchy can not change.
Perhaps it is you that is not keen enough to realize Adam failed in what you call his authority over his wife. And he was the one whom God told directly not to eat. But he did. Perhaps it says in scripture that Adam was not deceived because Adam being with Eve when they encountered the serpent , knowing what God had admonished, the first law of God uttered in the new world creation, to not eat of the fruit the serpent was offering Eve, and Adam did anyway, is cause to say, he was not, could not, have been deceived when he knew God his creator had commanded against what was being offered him now by both the adversary of God and Adam's woman.

Which would indicate Adam wasn't strong enough to be head of the woman. Because not only did he eat when offered the fruit by his wife, hearing the luring to do so from the serpent, being we're told Adam was with her at this time, but he freely chose to ignore his fathers command, and the threat that followed disobedience, and ate. He ate the fruit after Eve did.

What authority then did Adam example? He disobeyed his God over the tempting from God's adversary in serpent form, and his own wife.

He abdicated the responsibility inherent in being in authority of his wife. Adam surrendered it in the presence of the adversary , and at the leading of his wife to do as she did. Having been told what would happen should he disobey, and by God himself. And Adam ate anyway.
Adam sinned. Adam failed. Adam did not lead his wife to obey the command of God that they both may live.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
Then you are not keen enough


Exactly, while it was Eve who was deceived, the account of sin was put on Adam because he had authority over her wife.
And in the same manner, while it is church (bride) that sinned, the penalty for that sin is on the account of Christ(bride groom) because He has authority over the church and this is salvation. That hierarchy can not change.
And yet some still argue men are in authority over women. Even when they're told, there is no such edict, no division due to gender, for those who are reconciled to God their Father by the sacrifice of Himself, as His only Begotten, key word there, Son, so that human identity, race, or gender, is put aside and all who come to Christ are one in Him.

And in both the old and new testaments it is repeatedly said, when the woman and man are wed, as before they were individuals, they are now one. Just as they are when they come together with Christ. No Jew, no Gentile, no Greek, no male, no female, we are all one in Christ.

And this blessing arrive because in the beginning...two people condemned all people to be born ever after to arrive upon God's creation as already removed from their creator, and doomed. Unless or until they find their way to the Savior who is Sovereign, Omniscient, God, and did not, in the beginning, after having created all from and within himself, also created a forbidden tree to put in the paradise He later judged very good, forgive two innocent first born humans of His creation who were seduced by a keener mind, a calculating spirit, that we're told in God's word, cannot act without God's allowance.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
14,062
7,577
113
You're still stating that i completely missed your point without clarifying how i missed your point.

We don't need culture to understand what Paul was saying. In 1 Cor 11/ 1 Tim 2/ Eph 5, in all these instances, Paul used creation sequence and events around Adam and Eve to argue his points about men and women in congregation and their authorities.
It is clear that creation sequence has a connection to what Paul was saying about men and women, he did not pull it from the air, however, the issue of culture is not part of the scripture, so it can not support scripture. You don't put aside what has been clearly mentioned in the scripture for some other extra-biblical 'knowledge'.
I did clarify how you missed my point, but you missed that too.

You claim that because culture is not part of Scripture, it can't support scripture. Where do you get that codswollop? Have you taken any training in hermeneutics at all? Understanding culture is important, and almost foundational, to understanding Scripture. Yes, you can get the gist of Scripture without knowing the cultures in which it was written, but you're missing out on a lot of information that will make the passages make more sense.

It's not about putting aside Scripture for extra-biblical "knowledge" (I notice the unnecessary characterization). Rather, it's allowing the cultural context to inform how you interpret the passage in question.

In the case of 1 Timothy 2, Paul was writing to Timothy who was leading a church in Ephesus, the centre of worship of Diana/Artemis, replete with paganism of several forms. There were gnostic cults with female priestess/teachers who taught wacky ideas about Adam, Eve, and creation and also offered their students "private lessons" (yes, that's a euphemism). In this cultural context, Paul's words make perfect sense: he would not allow a woman of this sort to teach, seduce, or exercise inappropriate influence over a man. Rather, let her learn the truth the same way the males do; in quietness and full submission, for the ideas she learned elsewhere, that Eve was created first and was not deceived, are wrong, "for Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived." In this light, the passage does not mean, "women are not permitted to teach men because of the creation order". With nothing but a change of contextual understanding, the meaning of the passage is very different.

Your argument that Paul always referenced creation when talking about male/female is a stretch at best. He did not consistently refer to the same passage. He did not refer to creation at all in 1 Corinthians 14. There is only a reference to "the law", but that alleged law is not part of the Torah.