Women will be saved through Childbearing, if
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
-
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.
I don't accept as valid your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:13. There is no inherent reason why prior creation should confer any authority. There is a far better explanation of that passage, which takes into account the cultural context into which Paul wrote.
As for 1 Corinthians 14:35-36, it wasn't disgraceful for women to pray or prophesy in chapter 11, but suddenly it's disgraceful for them to speak in chapter 14. That doesn't make sense either. You're welcome to interpret the text as you see it; I don't agree.
It’s not a trick. It’s more like a behavioural science. I will send you a copy when I finish my book, “Surviving Marriage” you can read about “women logic” in chapters 8-21 and again in 24-27 It’s hard to nail down in just a few paragraphs.
Ok ladies I’m ready for the barrage of thumbs down, red Xs and sad face responses. It’s all in good fun....sort of.
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
How on God's green earth is being created second a cultural issue?
The topic he is addressing here is authoritative TEACHING.
"34Women f should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" - 1 Corinthians 14:34-36
You can see he's addressing the misplaced assertiveness of women in matters of the Word, telling them they are not to be allowed to exert an authority in teaching the word of God that, by nature, they do not possess.
Does this mean a man should never listen to a woman talk about the Word? Or that a man can never learn anything of value about the Word from a woman? Of course not. It means a woman should never hold a position of authority, like a pastor or elder, in the church regarding the Word. God does not use women in that capacity. Only men. And even then, only men that have been specifically called and equipped for that office. So that rules even you and me out! Get over it. Just accept what Paul, who has that authority, says about it.
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
Yeah, but look how good we are at it now.
dunno
doggo seems to have mastered the technique
Clearly if you beat long enough, the most unexpected join in!
beatin on the same ole drum again
I didn't say that it was. How on God's green earth does being created first confer authority?
Or, he's quoting someone else, which in light of certain other passages, makes better sense to me. "Authority" doesn't appear here, nor does "teaching".
Just accept that you have your interpretation, and I have mine.
Oh, by the way. I found appendix A, B, C, D, and F especially useful..........kinda.
Hey, if we're gonna go down, we might as well go down together. Hold on, mate!
Ask Paul.
I'm just submitting to what he said.
So should women.
Read vs. 36 again.
You can see the exact point about all this that he's addressing.
I'm good with that.
And any church certainly has the right to install women who they perceive as being authorities regarding God's Word.
As for me, if a woman who holds that office can't get these plain words about them not having that office available to them in the first place, I won't attend there or put myself under her authority (as if any pastor has authority these days anyway, lol). If she and that congregation can't understand the plainness of that teaching in the Bible why should I expect them to get it right about other things?
I'm being serious. I won't go there. And for that very reason.
Nothing personal to my sisters in Christ. I've learned valuable things from conversing with women. One very profound thing in particular I learned from a woman (gasp!) almost 34 years ago that I remember to this day and share with others. But that hardly means she has pastoral authority with which to teach the church.
You're assuming that your interpretation of Paul's words is correct. I don't believe it is.
If he's quoting someone else's words, verse 36 contradicts your position. The translation you're using is missing a word at the start of v. 36.
Good! I appreciate that we can disagree respectfully.
I'm just going by the plain words of Paul.
There is no compelling reason to interpret them any other way, as if they could be anyway.
These liberal theologies that demand we look for a reason for the Bible to not really mean what it says in places where, obviously, literary techniques (i.e. hyperbole) are not being used should be a red flag to the church. But it's not, and that is scary.
Look how we've compromised so many times that way until now we have openly, unrepentant gay people serving as authorities in the Word.
No, it doesn't contradict that.
It explains how he is NOT contradicting that.
This is a matter of seizing pastoral authority in the Word in the church where none has been given by God. That doesn't mean uncalled men like you or I, or women can't prophesy or sing or whatever in church. It means we can't do that from an appointed office of pastoral leadership. That office is only given to men. And only a few chosen men at that! If us uncalled men can submit to that, then so can women. Ego seems to be what makes it an issue for women. And that's part of the curse. Women in general don't easily accept the order of creation in man being the head of woman. Us men have our own curses from the fall to contend with. Women have to get over their's just as we men have to get over ours.
Oh, by the way. This same woman, who at the time was trying to have a baby, said her childbirth experience would be painless because that is a curse of the fall and the curse has been removed in Christ for believers. Meanwhile, I've been a believer for 34 years and I'm still waiting for the curse of having to work in order to eat to be taken away because I believe in Christ.
Great lady, really. But thank God she's not a pastor! But on the flip side, I think it was a man who taught her that!
Are we having fun yet, people?
The church.......gotta luv 'em. No, really.........we gotta luv 'em.
if part of the judgement of Woman was proclaiming that her desire be for her husband and that he rule over her, was part of her sin that she instead desired to rule over him?
years ago my wife and i were embroiled in an argument, and she contested that the Bible instructed me to submit to her as my wife. she had turned Ephesians 5 upside down - or, maybe, sideways lol - in her memory of it, she thought it instructed not only wives to submit to their husbands, but also husbands to likewise submit to their wives. i pointed that out, and she was incredulous until we read it together, and then her demeanor changed - she is a wonderful woman, and doesn't despise correction; i'm relating this to her praise, not her shame. in fact, after reading that, we forgot all about our arguing and spent a few hours searching the scripture and marveling about it together.
but my purpose in mentioning this is to point out that, not being familiar enough with the scripture, her instinct combined with an incomplete memory of it initially combined in her desiring to rule over me. where did this desire come from? it wasn't even about whatever decision it was we were arguing about making; it was about in whose hands the decision ultimately rested.
years ago my wife and i were embroiled in an argument, and she contested that the Bible instructed me to submit to her as my wife. she had turned Ephesians 5 upside down - or, maybe, sideways lol - in her memory of it, she thought it instructed not only wives to submit to their husbands, but also husbands to likewise submit to their wives. i pointed that out, and she was incredulous until we read it together, and then her demeanor changed - she is a wonderful woman, and doesn't despise correction; i'm relating this to her praise, not her shame. in fact, after reading that, we forgot all about our arguing and spent a few hours searching the scripture and marveling about it together.
but my purpose in mentioning this is to point out that, not being familiar enough with the scripture, her instinct combined with an incomplete memory of it initially combined in her desiring to rule over me. where did this desire come from? it wasn't even about whatever decision it was we were arguing about making; it was about in whose hands the decision ultimately rested.
I think the alleged link between women in ministry and gays in ministry is bunk.
I do think there is a compelling reason to interpret Paul's words the way that I do. It's not a matter of "liberal theologies" either, so kindly don't lump me with those who hold them.
There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 14 about "seizing pastoral authority". There is nothing in there about pastoral authority at all.
You're claiming that "be silent" doesn't mean "be silent" and by doing that, you are being just as "liberal" as you accuse me of being. Consistent application of the "plain words" of Paul demands that women be absolutely silent; no talking, no preaching, no singing, praying, prophesying, or chatting with the new lady who is bewildered by the strangeness of this thing called "church". No vocalizing whatsoever. Your congregation practices that, right?