Purpose

[DB7]

Jeremiah 1:5

When God spoke to Jeremiah, He said "before I formed you I knew you, before you were born I set you apart and appointed as prophet to the nations"

God did not call or should I say form Jeremiah and think thereafter what to do with him, He had clear purpose before, when He formed him, he designed (for lack of a better word) in a way that would fit into God's purpose.

You, yes you and I were created, called or chosen for a specific purpose, some of us are called to be prophets, pastors, evangelists to mention a few.

My friend once asked me how I understand the word "successful" and in my understanding as a general term it could mean being successful at whatever you were doing, but then again I said, success if finding who you are, your identity and the purpose for your existence.

I don't think Mpopi, that there are many on this thread that actually disagree with your message, I certainly don't, for i actually like it a lot. I just don't think that it was so insightful or such a revelation that one needed to claim that it came from God directly. Even Confucious and Ghandi, and even Mohammed, had very edifying and truthful insights. Are we prepared to claim that God inspired these men?
My only contention is that you had to affirm that God spoke to you, for that is very audacious as it implies that one, that it can't be questioned, and two, that you're very special to be receiving direct communication with God.
I can only wish that I was humble, devout and faithful enough that God would talk to me!

 

[Dino246]

Now, the question lies, do you not feel that there are explicit interdictions in the New Testament, that first, gives the woman a secondary status to man, and two, especially and emphatically in regard to Church administration? If not Mpopi, then we can only go as far as our understanding permits, but if there is, and you have somehow managed to overlook or misinterpret those passages, then you may need to reconsider your position on the matter. For, in my opinion, Paul was very serious and unmitigating about this topic. Outside of reading each verse in an isolated and out-of-context manner, one would be hard pressed to not see the fundamental and over-arching level that Paul was speaking on, very hard.

I'm not interested in a back-and-forth debate on this subject, but I would encourage you to do some more research on the bolded statement. Specifically, does the NT put all women in a secondary status to all men, or are the passages allegedly diminishing the status of women actually focused on a marital relationship?

If you have only studied material from authors/speakers who are complementarian, you may not have considered the alternative view adequately. I read the same NT you do, and my conclusion is markedly different, so your statements about Paul being "unmitigating" and "very hard" appear to have more to do with your interpretation than with the text itself.

 

[stillness]

Greetings saints.

I visited another church a few Sundays ago. As the Lady pastor was sharing the word, God said to me, look around you, look at each and everyone of them. And then He said "a life lived outside your purpose for existence, is a life lived ineffectively.

Genesis 1:26.

Hold fast to what you have heard, I now must share with you some important words the Lord told me also: Enter in as a little child and put away your divided spirit.
shortly after when falen in sin, with compashion in His voice: Come to My House, I'M coming to My House.
What you dont realise is that the battle is already won, its not as simple as you getting the power, you must Love the Truth.
If you still need encouragment read my Study journal and feel free to get back to me for the second half, and any questions you might have. The Lord blesses you on your Journey.

 

[DB7]

I'm not interested in a back-and-forth debate on this subject, but I would encourage you to do some more research on the bolded statement. Specifically, does the NT put all women in a secondary status to all men, or are the passages allegedly diminishing the status of women actually focused on a marital relationship?

If you have only studied material from authors/speakers who are complementarian, you may not have considered the alternative view adequately. I read the same NT you do, and my conclusion is markedly different, so your statements about Paul being "unmitigating" and "very hard" appear to have more to do with your interpretation than with the text itself.

Fair enough Dino, you're right in the sense that I probably belaboured the issue a bit as I stated my opinion a few posts earlier (I thought that i might have been a little exasperating at this point).
Actually, I've probably investigated more of the Egalitarian view then the Complementarian, as I felt that the latter was self-explanatory, just for the record (but overall, no where near as much as you have, I would think).
But, just between you & I, and for the sake of addressing your qualified point, I would state that in the case of 1 Timothy, because he says both 'Teach' and have 'Authority', i would think that covers a wider parameter than marriage alone (teaching between spouses is not a common issue in order to assume it's context here). And, when Paul enumerates headship of entities, i.e. Christ head of man, man head of Women, these are fundamental principles, not temporal, cultural or circumstantial, unless, one believes that Christ's headship over man is not currently in effect either, or that it's not intrinsic, i.e. 1st born of all creation & King of Kings.

But again Dino, I probably digressed too much from the intent of the OP. At the time I felt it was important, as I believed that it indirectly related to the main issue.
Either way, enough said, thank you very much for your input, it was an interesting perspective to allow me to see how others view the subject matter, and possibly to wrestle with those considerations if they're valid or not.
Thanks!

 

[stillness]

Hmm pretty sure your just making stuff up, if you want provide scriptures where God speaks in audible voices to the saints, as in word for word speech, like this guy claimed.

Even if He did, it would be pretty rare, since he has given us his word and it's generally stupid to follow voices and attach God's name to it.

There are those who dont hear and teach that there are no more ears, and there are those who hear practically every day depending on their fellowship with God. "Accieding to your Faith so be it to you."

 

[Dino246]

Fair enough Dino, you're right in the sense that I probably belaboured the issue a bit as I stated my opinion a few posts earlier (I thought that i might have been a little exasperating at this point).
Actually, I've probably investigated more of the Egalitarian view then the Complementarian, as I felt that the latter was self-explanatory, just for the record (but overall, no where near as much as you have, I would think).
But, just between you & I, and for the sake of addressing your qualified point, I would state that in the case of 1 Timothy, because he says both 'Teach' and have 'Authority', i would think that covers a wider parameter than marriage alone (teaching between spouses is not a common issue in order to assume it's context here). And, when Paul enumerates headship of entities, i.e. Christ head of man, man head of Women, these are fundamental principles, not temporal, cultural or circumstantial, unless, one believes that Christ's headship over man is not currently in effect either, or that it's not intrinsic, i.e. 1st born of all creation & King of Kings.

But again Dino, I probably digressed too much from the intent of the OP. At the time I felt it was important, as I believed that it indirectly related to the main issue.
Either way, enough said, thank you very much for your input, it was an interesting perspective to allow me to see how others view the subject matter, and possibly to wrestle with those considerations.
Thanks!

I appreciate that we can discuss this without rancor. It's rare, unfortunately.

1 Timothy doesn't use the usual Greek word for "authority", (exousia); the Greek word authentein is only used once in Scripture, and has a wide range of meanings in classical Greek, everything from "claim authorship" to "murder". The choice of "usurp authority" in the KJV has influenced many subsequent translators, and we're left with essentially a circular argument. There is important cultural context that informs the interpretation, which is only hinted at in the text.

1 Corinthians doesn't say that man is the head over "women" (plural) but over a woman (singular). That's an important distinction, and makes sense only in a narrow set of circumstances, excluding the Church generally.

 

[DB7]

I appreciate that we can discuss this without rancor. It's rare, unfortunately.

1 Timothy doesn't use the usual Greek word for "authority", (exousia); the Greek word authentein is only used once in Scripture, and has a wide range of meanings in classical Greek, everything from "claim authorship" to "murder". The choice of "usurp authority" in the KJV has influenced many subsequent translators, and we're left with essentially a circular argument. There is important cultural context that informs the interpretation, which is only hinted at in the text.

1 Corinthians doesn't say that man is the head over "women" (plural) but over a woman (singular). That's an important distinction, and makes sense only in a narrow set of circumstances, excluding the Church generally.

Thanks Dino, I'm going to look into the Greek then, a little further.
But, with all due respect, I think that the entire passage of 1 Cor. is speaking undeniably fundamentally as far as the first two, Christ's head, and Man's head is concerned, so your approach is isolating the part about the head of woman rather unconventionally, i would think. As in, the first two are fundamental, but the 3rd is circumstantial?

And since in 1 Tim. both teach (didaskein) and authority are juxtaposed in order to define the context, it's limits the various options for authentein, in that i would lean towards it's more austere meaning as in 'govern' or 'domineer', for teach or didaskein has that connotation also (teach, direct, admonish). So sorry, I believe that you did the same thing by isolating the key words, then giving them each a different context.

Dino, I'd love to carry on, but i'm going to stop in order to respect your wishes as to not endlessly go back an forth on this (i'm totally open either way).
Thanks again, it was a pleasure!

 

[Dino246]

Thanks Dino, I'm going to look into the Greek then, a little further.
But, with all due respect, I think that the entire passage of 1 Cor. is speaking undeniably fundamentally as far as the first two, Christ's head, and Man's head is concerned, so your approach is isolating the part about the head of woman rather unconventionally, i would think. As in, the first two are fundamental, but the 3rd is circumstantial?

And since in 1 Tim. both teach (didaskein) and authority are juxtaposed in order to define the context, it's limits the various options for authentein, in that i would lean towards it's more austere meaning as in 'govern' or 'domineer', for teach or didaskein has that connotation also (teach, direct, admonish). So sorry, I believe that you did the same thing by isolating the key words, then giving them each a different context.

Dino, I'd love to carry on, but i'm going to stop in order to respect your wishes as to not endlessly go back an forth on this (i'm totally open either way).
Thanks again, it was a pleasure!

IMHO this is a reasonable discussion, not the usual bickering that goes on over this issue (and many others). However, we seem to be going in circles on 1 Tim and 1 Cor 11. Rather than reiterating my points, I'll ask you to read my previous post carefully.

 

[DB7]

IMHO this is a reasonable discussion, not the usual bickering that goes on over this issue (and many others). However, we seem to be going in circles on 1 Tim and 1 Cor 11. Rather than reiterating my points, I'll ask you to read my previous post carefully.

Likewise Dino, reasonable enough, as intended. But, you're right, we're going in circles now, and to me, it seems to be a stalemate (sorry, after reading your post again, I still have the same contentions)?
Thank you for the discussion all the same, until the next controversy...

 

[Angela53510]

First, I am a woman pastor, working in a PhD in Theology. I have also done extensive research, esp in Greek, and have concluded that women can be pastors, and women are never secondary to men.(Disgraceful think to say!)

Probably the most rigid thing I have ever read, is that slavery is still acceptable. I suggest the book, "Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by William J. Webb

This an excellent book for examine the slavery issue, as well as women in ministry. (Just in case anyone is worried, he is against homosexuality, as the Bible says!) it is a scholarly book, and a tough read if you are not used to it.

Second, why is the example of Priscilla and Aquila not being examined? Out of 3 times, twice Paul mentioned the woman. In Greek and Jewish culture, the leader is always mentioned first. I don't know why Aquila was mentioned first once. Maybe it was to show the Paul acknowledged Aquila was a leader, but perhaps secondary to Prisca!

As far as 1Tim 2:12, Dino already discussed authentein but forgot to mention it is a hapax legomena-it only appears once in the NT. Therefore it cannot be compared against other inspired uses. In fact, Paul uses exousia every other time he talks about authority. Romans 13 comes to mind. Matthew also used it in Matt 28:18. I don't have my Greek tools, as I am visiting my grandchildren, but I am sure you can look this up.

So, why would Paul use a word that is different than his usual word, but a more obscure one? Because he didn't want to say "usurp/exercise authority!" First, authentein is an infinitive, having 2 words in the place of one is not good translating, especially when one word is a noun. Paul wanted a verb. In fact, there are as many as 50 ways of translating this word in extraneous documents from that time. The one which was used the most was "to domineer." In context, it makes the most sense, plus is an infinitive, not an infinitive plus a noun. It makes sense grammatically, but also culturally.

Paul was writing this to his son in the faith, Timothy. It is not prescriptive, but rather a private letter addressing a situation in Ephesus, the home of Artemis, the goodness and her temple! The women priestesses ran this temple, they were very domineering. Perhaps some of them, or former followers of Artemis got saved. They had no idea they needed to learn quietly, which was how the Jewish rabbinical students learned. In quiet! So Paul was advising Timothy on how to deal with HIS issue.

Back in 1611, the KJV translators didn't have many copies of the NT, just 6, and they were all corrupted copies. They relied on Erasmus, Catholic translation heavily, some books he just back translated from the Latin Vulgate. Plus, the extraneous materials available today were lost 400 years ago.

My 2nd year Greek professor, Bill Mounce and I discussed this at length. He had me read his 45 page commentary in this passage. In the end, he agreed that it was dependent upon that one word authentein, but being a complementarian, he preferred to use the translation that made women secondary. (Although he never made me feel I was secondary in a class full of men!)

So, I left a lot of disagrees, so now you know why. I could also get into the Greek and what it really says in 1 Tim 3, or 1 Cor. but I'll leave it for another time. In my opinion, this is secondary to the issue of whether the OP heard from God.

 

[Angela53510]

As to whether the OP heard those words, I cannot say. God has spoken clearly to me a number of times, but it was very personal, including my call to seminary.

I am reformed, and believe we are to rely on the written Word. I have read the entire Bible more than 50 times in many languages. I know it well. I would say God usually brings a verse to mind, and that is an answer. The times God has spoken to me, it was not initiated by me, like an answer to prayer. I don't think it was audible words, more like just knowing God had put something in my heart.

The generality of the words in the OP's experience bothers me. Although there is nothing against scripture either. I am more or less a cessationist. I am against tongues, prophecies, signs and wonders having come out of the Pentecostal/ charismatic churches I was in for 15 years. But, God is still on the throne, and he decides to speak to someone, in the still, small voice, (1 Kings 19:12) who am I to deny God spoke?

 

[DB7]

First, I am a woman pastor, working in a PhD in Theology. I have also done extensive research, esp in Greek, and have concluded that women can be pastors, and women are never secondary to men.(Disgraceful think to say!)

Probably the most rigid thing I have ever read, is that slavery is still acceptable. I suggest the book, "Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by William J. Webb

This an excellent book for examine the slavery issue, as well as women in ministry. (Just in case anyone is worried, he is against homosexuality, as the Bible says!) it is a scholarly book, and a tough read if you are not used to it.

Second, why is the example of Priscilla and Aquila not being examined? Out of 3 times, twice Paul mentioned the woman. In Greek and Jewish culture, the leader is always mentioned first. I don't know why Aquila was mentioned first once. Maybe it was to show the Paul acknowledged Aquila was a leader, but perhaps secondary to Prisca!

As far as 1Tim 2:12, Dino already discussed authentein but forgot to mention it is a hapax legomena-it only appears once in the NT. Therefore it cannot be compared against other inspired uses. In fact, Paul uses exousia every other time he talks about authority. Romans 13 comes to mind. Matthew also used it in Matt 28:18. I don't have my Greek tools, as I am visiting my grandchildren, but I am sure you can look this up.

So, why would Paul use a word that is different than his usual word, but a more obscure one? Because he didn't want to say "usurp/exercise authority!" First, authentein is an infinitive, having 2 words in the place of one is not good translating, especially when one word is a noun. Paul wanted a verb. In fact, there are as many as 50 ways of translating this word in extraneous documents from that time. The one which was used the most was "to domineer." In context, it makes the most sense, plus is an infinitive, not an infinitive plus a noun. It makes sense grammatically, but also culturally.

Paul was writing this to his son in the faith, Timothy. It is not prescriptive, but rather a private letter addressing a situation in Ephesus, the home of Artemis, the goodness and her temple! The women priestesses ran this temple, they were very domineering. Perhaps some of them, or former followers of Artemis got saved. They had no idea they needed to learn quietly, which was how the Jewish rabbinical students learned. In quiet! So Paul was advising Timothy on how to deal with HIS issue.

Back in 1611, the KJV translators didn't have many copies of the NT, just 6, and they were all corrupted copies. They relied on Erasmus, Catholic translation heavily, some books he just back translated from the Latin Vulgate. Plus, the extraneous materials available today were lost 400 years ago.

My 2nd year Greek professor, Bill Mounce and I discussed this at length. He had me read his 45 page commentary in this passage. In the end, he agreed that it was dependent upon that one word authentein, but being a complementarian, he preferred to use the translation that made women secondary. (Although he never made me feel I was secondary in a class full of men!)

So, I left a lot of disagrees, so now you know why. I could also get into the Greek and what it really says in 1 Tim 3, or 1 Cor. but I'll leave it for another time. In my opinion, this is secondary to the issue of whether the OP heard from God.

Angela, thank you very much for your well thought out opinion on this matter. You are obviously very educated and informed, and apparently, the issue is close to your heart i.e. desiring the office of authority.
1st point, when one has to split hairs to such a degree on a meaning of a word, it means the context and authorial intent has completely eluded the person. No offense, just consider the implications of such a dissection when the pericope is in the middle of a paragraph, chapter and book? Meaning, how much context does one need before such a word analysis is necessary?
I gave very sound arguments to justify the context that i believe that Paul was speaking within.
Plus, 1 Cor 11:3-16, Paul establishes that he is speaking to all the Churches on this principle, not just one in particular (you quoted Timothy as circumstantial, but I'm saying that judging by 1 Cor 11, Paul was complementarian).
Either way Angela, too long an issue to discuss on a thread about epiphanies, prophecies and revelations.
Thanks again Angela for your acumen and openness, ....just not to offend anyone, i must make this final statement to clarify the full comprehensiveness of my position, ... because I believe what I do, I also believe that a man must give his life for a woman, and not just his wife (and it's not the other way around).

 

[Flint321]

I'm just gonna leave this here, John Mac Arthur made a sermon a few weeks ago on this controversy issue, the bible declares that women can't be pastors its shameful, indeed wicked:

If you want proof watch the video, if you want evidence then just watch the sermon, i doubt you can argue with it, its very clear.

 

[DB7]

As to whether the OP heard those words, I cannot say. God has spoken clearly to me a number of times, but it was very personal, including my call to seminary.

I am reformed, and believe we are to rely on the written Word. I have read the entire Bible more than 50 times in many languages. I know it well. I would say God usually brings a verse to mind, and that is an answer. The times God has spoken to me, it was not initiated by me, like an answer to prayer. I don't think it was audible words, more like just knowing God had put something in my heart.

The generality of the words in the OP's experience bothers me. Although there is nothing against scripture either. I am more or less a cessationist. I am against tongues, prophecies, signs and wonders having come out of the Pentecostal/ charismatic churches I was in for 15 years. But, God is still on the throne, and he decides to speak to someone, in the still, small voice, (1 Kings 19:12) who am I to deny God spoke?

Ghandi, Dhali Lama and Mohammed all spoke words that were not against scripture, ...not to mention Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn (on occassion). You are a christian, therefore it is incumbent upon you to know when God speaks, how and to whom (in general). I say this in response to your 'who am I', for it sounds either naive, indifferent or almost complacent.
Yes God speaks, but so does the devil, and so does our extremely powerful brains that God gave us.
So unless it is utterly profound, extremely edifying, glorifying to God, and not something that is very common in scripture, then praise God accordingly, ...otherwise, don't belittle God with petty insights that even Confucious or Buddha can contrive.

 

[Janeaux]

I'm just gonna leave this here, John Mac Arthur made a sermon a few weeks ago on this controversy issue, the bible declares that women can't be pastors its shameful, indeed wicked:

If you want proof watch the video, if you want evidence then just watch the sermon, i doubt you can argue with it, its very clear.

I have watched it but I don't believe the word of a Calvinist. Second: he is a man, NOT God. Why would God even care who spreads His word ... as long as it is spread far & wide so that we may save as many as possible? (this is a question) Thank you.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

I have watched it but I don't believe the word of a Calvinist. Second: he is a man, NOT God. Why would God even care who spreads His word ... as long as it is spread far & wide so that we may save as many as possible? (this is a question) Thank you.

Why would God care? Do you have to ask? He cares because He said so, simple as that. It is IMPROPER for a woman to speak in church. It is not just a cultural thing but something absolute.

This is the risk of women pastors.

Revelation 2:20‭-‬22 KJV

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

 

[Angela53510]

Ghandi, Dhali Lama and Mohammed all spoke words that were not against scripture, ...not to mention Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn (on occassion). You are a christian, therefore it is incumbent upon you to know when God speaks, how and to whom (in general). I say this in response to your 'who am I', for it sounds either naive, indifferent or almost complacent.
Yes God speaks, but so does the devil, and so does our extremely powerful brains that God gave us.
So unless it is utterly profound, extremely edifying, glorifying to God, and not something that is very common in scripture, then praise God accordingly, ...otherwise, don't belittle God with petty insights that even Confucious or Buddha can contrive.

As a mature Christian, I agree we need to be discerning about what God has said, and what is not of God.

I could care less what pagan leaders and foreign gurus have to say. But, as my professor of world religion said, "all truth is God's truth." He was a missionary on Sabbatical from Indonesia, where he led whole tribes of head hunters to God, and many Muslims. He said it took longer to lead a Muslim to Christ, up to 2 years. He was an incredibly strong Christian, Reformed and the most amazing Professor I have had with his stunning stories of different people coming to Christ.m on the mission field. He also had a PhD in anthropology, and knew the Bible from cover to cover.

We constantly talked about the importance of discernment in the mission fields, his class was a blessing.

At no point did he condemn this kind of prophecy, in a Baptist seminary. He was not legalistic, especially in the way of excluding everything not revealed in Scripture, but rather comparing the Word to these revelations. He did not overlay western culture on the people he ministered you. He let all of our class grow in our understanding of faith, what is cultural and what is prescriptive.

As a mature believer in Christ, I do not feel my need to condemn or support the OP, except for all this complimentarisism in the church nonsense in the thread!

I would also state that you are free to believe what you want about this matter, whether you are right or wrong. I just feel it is better to find the truth rather than hanging onto ancient cultural beliefs. I call myself a true believer of the living, loving and just Saviour, and seek the truth. Please feel free to read Dr Bill Mounce's Word Commentary in the Pastoral epistles on this passage. I concluded on my own how important authentein is, and is the pivotal word in the entire discussion and My world renowned Greek professor agreed with me. He admitted he chose a complimentarisn translation, because that was his theological background. I felt strongly it was about new women converts not "domineering" men, as they were accustomed to doing in the religion of Artemis. One day we will know, when Jesus returns, and we meet him face to face. Until that day, I will believe in the equality of men and women in ministry.

For now, through a glass darkly, and in part. I will add, I can understand how difficult it would be to admit authentein meant "to dominate" because it would literally destroy the entire foundation upon which you have built your anthropological theology. My theology is based on Christ, the way he treated both men and women, as equals in ministry, as well as Paul!

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

It is calling Scripture a liar to say that women are secondary, when Paul firmly states that we are ALL equal. By saying women are secondary to men, you have called this very prescriptive passage a lie.

God called workers to the harvest. God would never have a law or principle excluding 52% of the church from being involved in enduring ministry. I preach in my church and our assistant pastor, a woman who also preaches has an exceptional call from God to be a pastor.

I have to think of Lottie Moon of the SBC who had a strong call in her life to be a missionary in the orient. She begged and pleaded and finally got permission to go, to China, where she was only allowed to peach the gospel to women, and teach young children. She would often sit in a building and all the doors and windows were open, and she shared the glorious gospel of God's grace, complete with repentance from sin. The men of the community would sit by the doors and under the windows in the cold night in China. Many were saved, and would beg to know more. One young man presented himself to her after a meeting and declared himself not only a Christian but felt God's call as an evangelist to his own people. He studied ostensibly under the male in the compound, who was doctrinal damaging and mentally ill. Fortunately, Lottie ended up doing the teaching and he set out to preach the gospel. 10,000 people came to know Christ as a result of his simple preaching about Jesus as he walked from village to village sharing the good news. For each person Lottie was able to preach concerning the grace of God, she brought people to God, who brought more people to him.

Would your legalism exclude Lottie Moon from preaching and the hundreds of thousands, or even millions who came to Christ, because she obeyed God, rather than men! I hope not!

 

[PennEd]

As to whether the OP heard those words, I cannot say. God has spoken clearly to me a number of times, but it was very personal, including my call to seminary.

I am reformed, and believe we are to rely on the written Word. I have read the entire Bible more than 50 times in many languages. I know it well. I would say God usually brings a verse to mind, and that is an answer. The times God has spoken to me, it was not initiated by me, like an answer to prayer. I don't think it was audible words, more like just knowing God had put something in my heart.

The generality of the words in the OP's experience bothers me. Although there is nothing against scripture either. I am more or less a cessationist. I am against tongues, prophecies, signs and wonders having come out of the Pentecostal/ charismatic churches I was in for 15 years. But, God is still on the throne, and he decides to speak to someone, in the still, small voice, (1 Kings 19:12) who am I to deny God spoke?

Awesome post Angela! I echo how the Lord has spoken to me on several occasions. I especially like how you said you weren't really asking for revelation, He just allowed it to happen. However, as you stated, if ANYTHING received counters the Word, it should be dismissed out of hand.

I'm reminded of a couple passages relating to go speaking and us hearing:

John 10:27 New King James Version (NKJV)
27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Psalm 19 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Perfect Revelation of the Lord
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
19 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament[a] shows [b]His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 Their [c]line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.
Hebrews 3:7 New King James Version (NKJV)
Be Faithful
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:

“Today, if you will hear His voice,
John 14:26 New King James Version (NKJV)
26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Romans 8:14-16 New King James Version (NKJV)
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba,[a] Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,


It may actually be a BIGGER issue if you are NOT hearing God.

 

[DB7]

As a mature Christian, I agree we need to be discerning about what God has said, and what is not of God.

I could care less what pagan leaders and foreign gurus have to say. But, as my professor of world religion said, "all truth is God's truth." He was a missionary on Sabbatical from Indonesia, where he led whole tribes of head hunters to God, and many Muslims. He said it took longer to lead a Muslim to Christ, up to 2 years. He was an incredibly strong Christian, Reformed and the most amazing Professor I have had with his stunning stories of different people coming to Christ.m on the mission field. He also had a PhD in anthropology, and knew the Bible from cover to cover.

We constantly talked about the importance of discernment in the mission fields, his class was a blessing.

At no point did he condemn this kind of prophecy, in a Baptist seminary. He was not legalistic, especially in the way of excluding everything not revealed in Scripture, but rather comparing the Word to these revelations. He did not overlay western culture on the people he ministered you. He let all of our class grow in our understanding of faith, what is cultural and what is prescriptive.

As a mature believer in Christ, I do not feel my need to condemn or support the OP, except for all this complimentarisism in the church nonsense in the thread!

I would also state that you are free to believe what you want about this matter, whether you are right or wrong. I just feel it is better to find the truth rather than hanging onto ancient cultural beliefs. I call myself a true believer of the living, loving and just Saviour, and seek the truth. Please feel free to read Dr Bill Mounce's Word Commentary in the Pastoral epistles on this passage. I concluded on my own how important authentein is, and is the pivotal word in the entire discussion and My world renowned Greek professor agreed with me. He admitted he chose a complimentarisn translation, because that was his theological background. I felt strongly it was about new women converts not "domineering" men, as they were accustomed to doing in the religion of Artemis. One day we will know, when Jesus returns, and we meet him face to face. Until that day, I will believe in the equality of men and women in ministry.

For now, through a glass darkly, and in part. I will add, I can understand how difficult it would be to admit authentein meant "to dominate" because it would literally destroy the entire foundation upon which you have built your anthropological theology. My theology is based on Christ, the way he treated both men and women, as equals in ministry, as well as Paul!

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

It is calling Scripture a liar to say that women are secondary, when Paul firmly states that we are ALL equal. By saying women are secondary to men, you have called this very prescriptive passage a lie.

God called workers to the harvest. God would never have a law or principle excluding 52% of the church from being involved in enduring ministry. I preach in my church and our assistant pastor, a woman who also preaches has an exceptional call from God to be a pastor.

I have to think of Lottie Moon of the SBC who had a strong call in her life to be a missionary in the orient. She begged and pleaded and finally got permission to go, to China, where she was only allowed to peach the gospel to women, and teach young children. She would often sit in a building and all the doors and windows were open, and she shared the glorious gospel of God's grace, complete with repentance from sin. The men of the community would sit by the doors and under the windows in the cold night in China. Many were saved, and would beg to know more. One young man presented himself to her after a meeting and declared himself not only a Christian but felt God's call as an evangelist to his own people. He studied ostensibly under the male in the compound, who was doctrinal damaging and mentally ill. Fortunately, Lottie ended up doing the teaching and he set out to preach the gospel. 10,000 people came to know Christ as a result of his simple preaching about Jesus as he walked from village to village sharing the good news. For each person Lottie was able to preach concerning the grace of God, she brought people to God, who brought more people to him.

Would your legalism exclude Lottie Moon from preaching and the hundreds of thousands, or even millions who came to Christ, because she obeyed God, rather than men! I hope not!

Hi Angela, wonderful dissertation, like I said, i won't dare to challenge you as far as acumen and experience are concerned.
For the sake of brevity, I won't address all your statements, but also, most was anecdotal anyhow, no problem either way.
But, my biggest, and most incriminating contention with what you stated is your exegesis of Gal 3:28.
As you should know, the context of this passage is Paul addressing the Judiazers, he is talking about eligibility for salvation.
Again, if Paul meant there is no gender in God's eyes, then homosexuality would be permissible (I'm almost scared to ask your opinion on homosexuality now). He also mentions Slave & Free, and yet he did not condemn or abolish slavery either. You took that way out of context, as you did by isolating authentein, completely disregarding its correlative didaskein (teach).
Paul was an inspired writer, he does not speak on a circumstantial or temporal level as you claim that he was to Timothy in Ephesus. The letter is called Pastoral, because that's who and what Paul was addressing, not Ephesus and Artemis.
Angela, excuse my candor, but you have very bad exegetical practices. You made several elementary errors within your one post.
You ask 'would my 'wisdom and perception of God's word' not permit me to allow Lottie Moon to preach to men', yes, absolutely. Although, it's a call to men to step up to the plate.
Again, I'm not saying that women are not capable, or less competent then men, I believe that the opposite is true in many occasions. But sometimes children are smarter than parents, students more competent than teachers, civilians more upstanding than the authorities, it doesn't mean that they should defy or usurp their overseers inherent authority.
Angela, despite my perceived vehemence, i enjoy very much talking to you, i wish that we were face to face, ...understanding that it's not necessarily mutual.

 

[Dino246]

Why would God care? Do you have to ask? He cares because He said so, simple as that. It is IMPROPER for a woman to speak in church. It is not just a cultural thing but something absolute.

This is the risk of women pastors.

Revelation 2:20‭-‬22 KJV

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Revelation 2:20-22 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "women pastors". There is NOTHING in the text to suggest that Jezebel was functioning as a pastor. Further, the text says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about women in general, nor about female pastors in general. Jesus was addressing ONE situation regarding ONE woman.

Regarding your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14, unless you and the women at the church you attend are ABSOLUTELY SILENT from the moment you step into the church until the moment you are outside, you have no moral ground on which to stand. Don't even greet anyone, because that would be improper.

Then figure out how women could prophesy in chapter 11 without speaking aloud. Then make sense of Joel 2, which Peter quoted at Pentecost, where God said "Your sons and daughters shall prophesy."

... smh...