That's the response of someone with no sound argument. All you can do is point the finger and condemn.
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.
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.
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.
T
TheIndianGirl
Guest
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.
Phoebe was a deacon. Priscilla was a teacher.
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.
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;
T
TheIndianGirl
Guest
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...
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.