Are women inferior to men?

[SkyWriting]

Strong in Him,

It is obvious that you see the error in what Skywriting has interjected in defense of 'women' being 'equal' to men. And just look at the extremes he has offered in trying to defend what he believes. Most of what he has offered couldn't be further from the truth we have been offered in the Bible. He has chosen to pick and choose individual lines and then create his own doctrine using the lines that match what he 'wants' to believe.

I'm not here to debate individual beliefs. I'll certainly point out contradiction when I see it and expose it as such.

But I believe you can clearly see that the 'ideas' that have been offered by this individual are no where close to Biblical. Your words in defense of the 'truth' make it clear that the idea that Paul didn't have any idea of the Holy Spirit and was simply speaking 'personal opinion' or understanding of 'his own' is ludicrous from the standpoint of anyone that believes that the Bible is the 'Word' of God.

Paul was specifically chosen by Christ to be one of the few chosen to 'start' the Church. And it is pretty clear through the sacrifices that he made that he was certainly devoted to his 'calling'.

I offer this response to point out what this person has offered in order to insist that there is no 'gender order' created by God. And most often, it is the same with any and everyone that tries to follow such a 'path' when it comes to understanding. For anyone that has read the Bible, it is perfectly clear that the ideas offered by Skywriting are 'not' understanding offered through the Bible 'in truth'. Only by ignoring the scripture that contradicts such ideas and altering what 'is offered' could one come to such conclusions. Therefore, the ideas are 'not' Biblical. Utter confusion in fact. And God is 'not' the author of confusion. And something that I continually try to point out: "If God is not the 'author of confusion', then 'who is'?

Blessings,

MEC

I appreciate that one must defend what they have been taught, women should shut up
in church, grow long hair, and keep their heads covered. Men should be ashamed of
long hair. (I imagine a barber with that scripture on a poster)

It's hard to imagine, so I'll just keep at it.
Matthew 7:12

In everything,
then,
do to others as you would have them do to you.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets. ​

13 Enter through the narrow gate.



I will concede the point that Paul may not have known woman would ever get to vote.
He didn't allow for slaves to vote.
We, in the us, didn't allow blacks to vote either. Christian people by the way.
So Paul was only wrong in the sense that now that women and blacks can vote, his edicts are wrong.
Groups can only be ruled, if they agree to be ruled.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, the Spirit was poured out on all at Pentecost and has been active ever since - and in fact even before then.
Meaning that he was active, and awake, when men were praying and debating the writings that should be included in the Bible.

So men decided what went into canon. They did the writing, the editing, formed committees of men.
I can see the problem here.

 

[SkyWriting]

No.
Jesus sent the Spirit to remind the disciples of all he had taught them; he made provision for their future writings and teachings. He did not say "many years after you have died, people will come along and put all of your writings into one book, and this is how YOU can make sure they do it right." He made provision for that too - the same Spirit who inspired the disciples would also inspire all future disciples.

I appreciate that your pastor said the Holy Spirit is without flaw, so scripture is too.
But he's a man and doesn't want women preaching.

Matthew 7
11 So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.
13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

#11 is an example of doing #12 which is also doing #13.
The Golden rule even works for evil people.

 

[SkyWriting]

We can't tell God how to answer our prayers, we can't give our lives to him and then tell him what to do with them, or place restrictions on how we will serve him.

And we can't trust that men created a perfect set of scriptures. That's too specific.

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus told his disciples that the Spirit of truth would lead them into all truth, that he would remind them of everything that Jesus had said and that he would take from what belonged to Jesus and give it to them. As well as this, he spent 40 days after his resurrection personally teaching the 11 disciples. I firmly believe he would have taught and inspired Paul in the same way - maybe during the 3 years that Paul spent in the desert.
Scripture reveals God. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. So yes, it is inerrant - otherwise how would we know what to trust and which bits to believe?

It is spiritually perfect. Not being in the original language, it's not actually God's words. Only the meanings
can survive the translation through men.

 

[SkyWriting]

IF God had been saying to Paul, "in my church I do not allow women to be ordained", then that's how it would be; unless you're accusing the Creator of mankind and founder of the church of sexual discrimination. IF God wanted his church to be led only by English speaking men with blue eyes, blond hair and one leg, then that's how it would be. He is Lord, it's his church and he has the perfect right to say that.
But he hasn't.
And if Paul was wrong, then we have some wrong words/sentences/thoughts in Scripture; God's holy word. If the Spirit of truth has allowed this, how do we know what other errors there might be, and how do we know what to believe?

Your problem with errors is not my problem.

11 So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law andthe prophets. 13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

This rules out any gender based rules or guidelines. Simple and clean.

 

[Achilles6129]

You can't pit one passage of Scripture against everything else. If that passage were to mean what you've interpreted it to mean then the two witnesses in Revelation would be totally in the wrong, as would virtually every prophet and apostle in all of Scripture. Clearly they're not always doing unto others as they would have others do unto them: that's just obvious by what they say and what they do.

 

[Strong in Him]

So men decided what went into canon. They did the writing, the editing, formed committees of men.
I can see the problem here.

They decided under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
There's only a problem if you don't believe in the inspiration, or indwelling, of the Spirit and believe that men decided on their own, with their own human minds, human logic and reasoning.

 

[Strong in Him]

I appreciate that your pastor said the Holy Spirit is without flaw, so scripture is too.

Umm no, JESUS said that the Spirit of truth will lead us into all truth, and Scripture teaches that the Spirit of GOD is divine. Does God make mistakes? Would he leave us with a faulty revelation of himself?
If Scripture contains errors, how do you know you can trust what Jesus said and taught?

But he's a man and doesn't want women preaching.

Nope.
I mean, he is a man, but the Methodist church allows women preachers; I am one myself, and we have several female Ministers in our circuit.
So that was a judgement, because you clearly have no idea about his views on women preachers.

Matthew 7
11 So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.
13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

You can't keep quoting your pet verse and apply it to everything in Scripture.
Like I said, if GOD wanted preachers to be only men, or men with blond hair, or men with two pet dogs who hated cats and children; IF those were GOD'S rules about who would lead his church, then that's what would happen. And I suggest that if God had clearly said, in every book of the NT, "women cannot be ordained Ministers"; if it was that clear and an unambiguous divine command - then that is exactly what would happen. To suggest that the Lord of the universe could be guilty of sexual inequality is ludicrous.

 

[Brokenhill]

If God had commanded that women should not teach, then women should not teach - anyone, ever.

I don't agree that it has to be 1 way or the other. There is a distinction between teaching those outside of Christ, and those inside of Christ.

Well either having female teachers is not a command from God then, or he breaks his own word. And if the latter, then how can we trust it?

Prior to the Torah, God allowed incest, but now He does not. Also, under the Torah, priests were required to slaughter animals physically for the forgiveness of sins, but then He sent Christ. Did God break his own words? No, just because things seem to be contradictory doesn't mean they are.

Evangelism involves teaching - it is informing someone they are a sinner, why they are a sinner, how they became separated from God, what they (we) deserve and what God did to rescue us. It may involve answering their questions and objections and showing, and explaining, various Scriptures. If women are allowed to do this, then women are sometimes involved in teaching men - and it doesn't matter if they are in the Body of Christ or not; teaching a man is teaching a man and if it is forbidden then it should be totally forbidden, across the board, no exceptions.
But there are women who teach theology, even train men for the Ministry. Female authors teach men. I am replying to your post, and reply to many posts on these forums written by men. There have been some men on this forum who have written unscriptural posts - they claim they are Christian yet deny the Trinity, for example. I have replied to many of these posts. Maybe you feel that I shouldn't; maybe you believe that it would be better if I left the men in ignorance, or ignored false teaching. Maybe you would rather these forums were just for men?

Keeping previously mentioned verses in context, Paul was speaking to a local congregation, so when it comes to the physical congregation of the body of Christ, women were to remain subject to the men's authority during the affairs of the assembly. And I suppose that if one of the men were teaching wrong in the assembly, then a woman (or at least in the case of a wife) would have to challenge her husband at home, who would in turn have to challenge said brother, rather than the woman rebuking the man openly amongst the assembly.
At least that would be my best personal interpretation at that.
Other situations I do see as gray, hard to define areas...I admit I don't have the answer for all situations.
The only other thing I would add is that part of it may come down to the conscious. At the very least, if you have an answer ready for God on the day of judgement backed by scripture regarding this matter, then I can't say much against it.

The NT teaching on headship is about the marriage relationship; "wives obey your husbands", and so on.
Being a Minister in a church is not the same as being a husband. Ministers can retire, resign or be sacked; husbands can't (or shouldn't.) Ministers have their calling tested, are trained, are appointed to a particular church for a while and then move on, are paid and may get promotions - husbands don't and aren't.
If you're talking about authority in the church, however; you have just, more or less, said that a woman may teach if she has a man with her or if she is wearing a head covering. So presumably a woman may be a curate in a church where her husband is the Minister? Or be a vicar if her husband is also one, or a bishop, or if she wears a hat while preaching?

God gives authority to us, believers, to teach, perform miracles, forgive sins and so on. He calls and equips us to be his witnesses, to make disciples and TEACH people about him and everything Jesus said. Paul did not say, anywhere, that women are exempt from this or that God will never give the gift of teaching to a woman.

You may be able to argue the case of marriage in certain passage, but no where in 1 Tim. 2 does it specify that, it seems to be speaking to all women. How do you reconcile that?

1 Cor 11 authorizes women for "prophesying" and "praying" (which I am one of the few in the CoC that would believe this means women can guide the prayer amongst men) with their heads covered, so yes, that is acceptable as long as it's accompanied by the correct attitude...the recognition of headship toward the man. I see modern day preaching (which is basically various forms of exegesis) differently than the prophesying.
___

I just wanted to add a couple quotes from the "Early Church Fathers", as they understood these passages at face value also:

"We do not permit our women 'to teach in the church.' Rather, they are only permitted to pray and hear those who teach. For Jesus Himself, our Master and Lord, when He sent out the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, nowhere sent out women to preach--even though there was no lack of women available. For there were with Him the mother of our Lord, and His sisters; Mary Magdalene; Mary, the mother of James, Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus; Salome; and certain others...for 'the head of the wife is the man' and it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head."
--Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390)

"But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing! ... For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a women even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! He said 'let them be silent and consult their husbands at home'"
--Tertullian (c. 198)

I don't have all the answers for where to draw the lines of distinction with women teaching, but scripture says that LINES MUST BE DRAWN. At the very least for certain offices in the body of Christ.

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't agree that it has to be 1 way or the other. There is a distinction between teaching those outside of Christ, and those inside of Christ.

I don't see how it could be any other way.
Or are you saying that women may teach non Christian men - proclaim the Gospel, show them the way of salvation. But once they are saved they can do nothing to correct the men's theology; if she sees that they are misguided and headed into false teaching and leading others astray, she must just leave them to get on with it?
Apollos loved Jesus and taught about him, but did not know about baptism in the Holy Spirit; Priscilla and Aquila both taught and corrected him. We don't know how much of the teaching Priscilla did, but she didn't send Aquila off on his own, saying that she couldn't get involved. Paul was in Corinth when this happened.

Prior to the Torah, God allowed incest, but now He does not. Also, under the Torah, priests were required to slaughter animals physically for the forgiveness of sins, but then He sent Christ. Did God break his own words? No, just because things seem to be contradictory doesn't mean they are.

And the latter is an example of how God moves and does NEW things in different times. This is almost exactly what I have said to people who have said, "God can't, and doesn't, call women today to preach and lead churches because there is no example of it in Scripture." (Although there are Scriptural examples of women leading, prophesying, evangelising and playing an important role in the early church.)
God doesn't change, but the ways in which he work, do - eg the examples you have just given.

Keeping previously mentioned verses in context, Paul was speaking to a local congregation, so when it comes to the physical congregation of the body of Christ, women were to remain subject to the men's authority during the affairs of the assembly. And I suppose that if one of the men were teaching wrong in the assembly, then a woman (or at least in the case of a wife) would have to challenge her husband at home, who would in turn have to challenge said brother, rather than the woman rebuking the man openly amongst the assembly.
At least that would be my best personal interpretation at that.

That's one interpretation. Another would be that women wanted to learn, (they were not allowed to in that society, which is why Paul says "LET the women learn .... "1 Timothy 2:11. So eager were they to learn the things of God, however, that they were calling out questions during the talk - and possibly asking the nearest available man! This is why Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 14:35, that IF she wants to learn she should ask her OWN husband, at home.

You may be able to argue the case of marriage in certain passage, but no where in 1 Tim. 2 does it specify that, it seems to be speaking to all women. How do you reconcile that?

How do I reconcile what?
I was answering another forummer who said that Scripture clearly teaches male headship, so women can't be ordained or church leaders. I said that the Scriptural teaching on male headship is directed to the marriage relationship, "wives submit to your husbands". This does not prove that a woman cannot be a Minister of a church - the Minister/congregation relationship is not the same as the husband/wife relationship.

1 Cor 11 authorizes women for "prophesying" and "praying" (which I am one of the few in the CoC that would believe this means women can guide the prayer amongst men) with their heads covered, so yes, that is acceptable as long as it's accompanied by the correct attitude...

Exactly; in that case, the men are not literally enforcing Paul's words that women should be silent. Some people take this teaching literally, saying "there you are, women must be silent in church so they can't preach or lead", (though what they'd say about a woman preaching in sign language in a deaf church has not been discussed.) They then wither seem to ignore Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 or go to extraordinary lengths to prove that these women weren't prophesying "in church" so it's ok.

I just wanted to add a couple quotes from the "Early Church Fathers", as they understood these passages at face value also:

"We do not permit our women 'to teach in the church.' Rather, they are only permitted to pray and hear those who teach. For Jesus Himself, our Master and Lord, when He sent out the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, nowhere sent out women to preach--even though there was no lack of women available.

No, it is not recorded that there were women among the 70 that the Lord sent out in Luke 10 - that doesn't mean there weren't.

For there were with Him the mother of our Lord, and His sisters; Mary Magdalene; Mary, the mother of James, Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus; Salome; and certain others...

Yes. Jesus' mother Mary was with the apostles in the upper room after the ascension and with them at Pentecost (because all the believers were gathered together.) She was one of the sources behind Luke's Gospel. Mary Magdalene was specifically chosen to be the first witness to the resurrection, told to tell the others (men who were in hiding) and give them a message from Jesus. Mary, Lazarus' sister anointed Jesus for huis burial before he died. We may not have a record of their teaching, but do you really think they wouldn't have told their stories to anyone who asked "tell me about Jesus"?

I'm sure the early fathers can't have believed that only men are to obey the Great Commission, "Go ... teach.... make disciples", Matthew 28:19-20. I can't believe that when I stand before God and he says "did you tell others about my Son?" I'll be able to say "no, because you created me female", and that will let me off the hook.

"But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing! ... For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a women even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! He said 'let them be silent and consult their husbands at home'"
--Tertullian (c. 198).

Oh so Tertullian believed that women are exempt from following our Lord's command?
I think I'll listen to Jesus' words rather than his, if that's ok.

I don't have all the answers for where to draw the lines of distinction with women teaching, but scripture says that LINES MUST BE DRAWN. At the very least for certain offices in the body of Christ.

Well in that case, God is disobeying Scripture! How many women preachers and Ministers are there in the world today? How many women still come forward and say "I think God is calling me to do this" and are allowed to by men - even with their blessing? This isn't just a "recent fad" either - it's been going on for hundreds of years.

Scripture does NOT say "lines must be drawn". And even if it did, and God intended for the church at that time to be led by men only - because they weren't ready for female ministry - that doesn't prove that's how it has to be today. As in your first examples, God says one thing at one time, and later moves in a different way. And as I have just said, look around you; what is God doing in the church today?

 

[Brokenhill]

I don't see how it could be any other way.
Or are you saying that women may teach non Christian men - proclaim the Gospel, show them the way of salvation. But once they are saved they can do nothing to correct the men's theology; if she sees that they are misguided and headed into false teaching and leading others astray, she must just leave them to get on with it?
Apollos loved Jesus and taught about him, but did not know about baptism in the Holy Spirit; Priscilla and Aquila both taught and corrected him. We don't know how much of the teaching Priscilla did, but she didn't send Aquila off on his own, saying that she couldn't get involved. Paul was in Corinth when this happened.

And the latter is an example of how God moves and does NEW things in different times. This is almost exactly what I have said to people who have said, "God can't, and doesn't, call women today to preach and lead churches because there is no example of it in Scripture." (Although there are Scriptural examples of women leading, prophesying, evangelising and playing an important role in the early church.)
God doesn't change, but the ways in which he work, do - eg the examples you have just given.

That's one interpretation. Another would be that women wanted to learn, (they were not allowed to in that society, which is why Paul says "LET the women learn .... "1 Timothy 2:11. So eager were they to learn the things of God, however, that they were calling out questions during the talk - and possibly asking the nearest available man! This is why Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 14:35, that IF she wants to learn she should ask her OWN husband, at home.

How do I reconcile what?
I was answering another forummer who said that Scripture clearly teaches male headship, so women can't be ordained or church leaders. I said that the Scriptural teaching on male headship is directed to the marriage relationship, "wives submit to your husbands". This does not prove that a woman cannot be a Minister of a church - the Minister/congregation relationship is not the same as the husband/wife relationship.

Exactly; in that case, the men are not literally enforcing Paul's words that women should be silent. Some people take this teaching literally, saying "there you are, women must be silent in church so they can't preach or lead", (though what they'd say about a woman preaching in sign language in a deaf church has not been discussed.) They then wither seem to ignore Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 or go to extraordinary lengths to prove that these women weren't prophesying "in church" so it's ok.

No, it is not recorded that there were women among the 70 that the Lord sent out in Luke 10 - that doesn't mean there weren't.

Yes. Jesus' mother Mary was with the apostles in the upper room after the ascension and with them at Pentecost (because all the believers were gathered together.) She was one of the sources behind Luke's Gospel. Mary Magdalene was specifically chosen to be the first witness to the resurrection, told to tell the others (men who were in hiding) and give them a message from Jesus. Mary, Lazarus' sister anointed Jesus for huis burial before he died. We may not have a record of their teaching, but do you really think they wouldn't have told their stories to anyone who asked "tell me about Jesus"?

I'm sure the early fathers can't have believed that only men are to obey the Great Commission, "Go ... teach.... make disciples", Matthew 28:19-20. I can't believe that when I stand before God and he says "did you tell others about my Son?" I'll be able to say "no, because you created me female", and that will let me off the hook.

Oh so Tertullian believed that women are exempt from following our Lord's command?
I think I'll listen to Jesus' words rather than his, if that's ok.

Well in that case, God is disobeying Scripture! How many women preachers and Ministers are there in the world today? How many women still come forward and say "I think God is calling me to do this" and are allowed to by men - even with their blessing? This isn't just a "recent fad" either - it's been going on for hundreds of years.

Scripture does NOT say "lines must be drawn". And even if it did, and God intended for the church at that time to be led by men only - because they weren't ready for female ministry - that doesn't prove that's how it has to be today. As in your first examples, God says one thing at one time, and later moves in a different way. And as I have just said, look around you; what is God doing in the church today?

Scripture does not say "lines must be drawn", scripture draws those lines for us.

Women can not hold the office of an elder.
Women can not hold the office of a deacon.
Women can not exercise authority nor teach over a man in the local assembly of those in Christ. (Which I believe we can most reasonably assume it's referring to a paid preacher/teacher who helps guide and direct the congregation in conjunction with the elders, if there are any).

Women can evangelize, give words of encouragement, admonish others in private (in a respectable manner), sing with the saints, and the like...

If you disagree with these things, you disagree with scripture.

Now as for some of the in-betweens of the former and latter, it's where some personal opinion or conscious comes into play...which we indeed would have to answer God for our actions. But like I said, scripture clearly defines SOME of those lines for us.
____
Marriage is not discussed in the passage telling women to learn in quietness.
And yes I agree the word's of Christ are infinitely more invaluable than any "church father", however, I quoted them to show that they also understood the passages as people like I do--literally, at face value.
____
Sure, God introduced new things over time. However, the way in which He speaks to us today is still just with Genesis through Revelation. There is nothing new since then, no changes we can qualify, therefore those teachings still stand.
And male headship is one of those eternal teachings anyway, as it appears in the beginning of the bible, all the way to the end. It's not one of those things that really changed.

 

[Strong in Him]

Scripture does not say "lines must be drawn", scripture draws those lines for us.

Women can not hold the office of an elder.
Women can not hold the office of a deacon.

Scripture does not say that.
Phoebe was a deacon.

Women can not exercise authority nor teach over a man in the local assembly of those in Christ. (Which I believe we can most reasonably assume it's referring to a paid preacher/teacher who helps guide and direct the congregation in conjunction with the elders, if there are any).

Scripture does not say that.
Paul did not allow it, and maybe, at that time in that still male dominated society, it would have been frowned upon. But can you show me where it says that women will NEVER be able to teach men, at any time, in any culture?

Paul and the apostles expected the Lord to return in their lifetime, and no doubt genuinely believed the church wouldn't be around for much longer. Personally I doubt very much that they could have foreseen that a) the church would still be around 2000 years later, b) that it would have spread, grown, divided, existed in many countries which each had different cultures and different denominations and c) that women would ever be in the place that we are today.

Had this been of utmost importance and a command from God I believe Jesus would have taught it and the Holy Spirit would have made it very clear. In other words given Paul or someone a prophecy that in years to come women would begin to ask if they could lead a church, and when they do the answer is "no, under no circumstances". But he did not. And like I said, look around; God is calling and allowing women to do this today. If he wanted to, he could forbid or oppose it, have the women removed and guide them into truth as he said he would. But that's not happening.
The fact that God is calling women to be ordained today, suggests to me that Scripture does NOT forbid it, because God won't go against his word. He works in new ways, but if he had commanded women not to do this, then he wouldn't call them to do it. This tells me that it is people's understanding of Scripture which is wrong; not God and not the women who hear his call and are following him.

Women can evangelize, give words of encouragement, admonish others in private (in a respectable manner), sing with the saints, and the like...

So you don't take literally, or apply, Paul's words about women being silent; only his words that he does not allow a woman to usurp authority? Ok.

If you disagree with these things, you disagree with scripture.

I disagree with your interpretation of some verses of Scripture - there's a difference.

Now as for some of the in-betweens of the former and latter, it's where some personal opinion or conscious comes into play...which we indeed would have to answer God for our actions. But like I said, scripture clearly defines SOME of those lines for us.

I don't believe it does.
Otherwise you are saying that some Christian women can see for themselves what Scripture says but choose to deliberately disobey it, and are clever enough to persuade male clergy that whatever they think Scripture means; it doesn't, and they need to ordain women ASAP.

It's either flattering that you think that some women are that clever, or outrageous that you think that they would go to those lengths to disobey God and cause men to sin, just so that they could get what they wanted. And all the while God is watching and saying, "oh I really didn't want that to happen; what can I do about it?"

Marriage is not discussed in the passage telling women to learn in quietness.

Exactly.
When Scripture teaches headship and submission it is talking about the marriage relationship, not the role between Minister and congregation.

And yes I agree the word's of Christ are infinitely more invaluable than any "church father", however, I quoted them to show that they also understood the passages as people like I do--literally, at face value.

Except you don't take Paul's words about women being silent at face value.

Sure, God introduced new things over time. However, the way in which He speaks to us today is still just with Genesis through Revelation. There is nothing new since then, no changes we can qualify, therefore those teachings still stand.

God's nature, God's love and the Gospel never change and will always stand. This matter of female ordination is not doctrine, or a teaching as such, doesn't pertain to salvation and is not even that important. Some people sincerely and adamantly believe that women are not to preach or be ordained, and found, or work in, churches with that belief. Others adamantly believe that God calls women both to preach and to ordination, and allow women to use their gifts and respond to their calling. If both "sides" accept the Gospel, trust in the Lord Jesus for salvation and are filled with his Spirit, they will all meet in heaven.

And male headship is one of those eternal teachings anyway, as it appears in the beginning of the bible, all the way to the end. It's not one of those things that really changed.

No.
As I said, male headship as taught by Paul, refers to marriage, not leading in a church. Adam was not ordained and Eve a lay person. Even if Adam was responsible for his wife's relationship with God and spiritual condition - and he didn't do a very good job - it was as her husband, not her Minister.

 

[Brokenhill]

Scripture does not say that.
Phoebe was a deacon.

First of all, what you (and many women today) don't understand is that just because women can't be in certain positions of authority in the church does NOT mean that they are UNIMPORTANT or LESSER Christians, etc. Just because women have a different role, doesn't mean that it is an inferior role.

Second, before proceeding I want to lay down one foundational concept to God's plan, and I will let the scripture speak for itself.
Deut. 4:
“1Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Revelation 22:
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Qualifications of elders + deacons,
1 Tim. 3:
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so * that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Women cannot be husbands. Therefore, deacons and elders are men only.

Phoebe was a servant of Christ. Yes, I realize the Greek word is the same word as the deacon used the aforementioned verse. But there is a distinction made in the English versions, because the translators knew that there was a difference. All men and women in Christ are servants of Him. However, only men are authorized to the office of elder/deacon/preacher in the body of Christ. Read the beginning of Acts 6, seven men were chosen for the service of widows in need at that local congregation...I believe it's reasonable to conclude that that additionally supports the idea of a deacon office, as those men were appointed.

If male headship is expected in the marriage, then why would it be any different in the church? The church initiator and leaders (Christ and His apostles, who were males), taught the men to be adequate leader-husbands. Why would women teach men to be proper leaders of their wives? That doesn't make sense.

If Jesus wanted women to be leaders in His body, he would have said so...or he would have shown so. Christ led by example. Christ was a male. Christ selected 13 men to be apostles and then God selected another male to be an apostle to fill Judas' place. In the beginning it was a patriarchal society, during the Law of Moses it was male-led (note particularly the temple service...all men). And then John the Baptist + Jesus and the new ministry was all male led. Jesus would have chosen a women if that's what God's will was. It wasn't.

Scripture does not say that.
Paul did not allow it, and maybe, at that time in that still male dominated society, it would have been frowned upon. But can you show me where it says that women will NEVER be able to teach men, at any time, in any culture?

Paul and the apostles expected the Lord to return in their lifetime, and no doubt genuinely believed the church wouldn't be around for much longer. Personally I doubt very much that they could have foreseen that a) the church would still be around 2000 years later, b) that it would have spread, grown, divided, existed in many countries which each had different cultures and different denominations and c) that women would ever be in the place that we are today.

Had this been of utmost importance and a command from God I believe Jesus would have taught it and the Holy Spirit would have made it very clear. In other words given Paul or someone a prophecy that in years to come women would begin to ask if they could lead a church, and when they do the answer is "no, under no circumstances". But he did not. And like I said, look around; God is calling and allowing women to do this today. If he wanted to, he could forbid or oppose it, have the women removed and guide them into truth as he said he would. But that's not happening.
The fact that God is calling women to be ordained today, suggests to me that Scripture does NOT forbid it, because God won't go against his word. He works in new ways, but if he had commanded women not to do this, then he wouldn't call them to do it. This tells me that it is people's understanding of Scripture which is wrong; not God and not the women who hear his call and are following him.

-First of all you seem to be implying that Paul not necessarily giving God's commands but his own. That's a dangerous slippery slope that I won't get into right now. We have no reason but to assume that Paul was speaking by the Spirit when he desired for women to remain silent (because if you look at 1 Cor 7:12 Paul specifically states that he is giving his own opinion, no God's command).
-You're almost being hypocritical. You're requiring me to show a verse that specifically states "no women, not ever", when you cannot provide me a scripture that says women will be leaders or called by God specifically in the future to be elders, deacons, preachers, etc. It's not in scripture.
-The Spirit does make this principal clear. You are ignoring evidence!
-Just because people say they are called by God to do things, doesn't mean they actually are. A lot of things...a lot of bad things go down in the so-called Christian church that are evil or against scripture. God is waiting till judgement day to punish the wrong-doers He could stop it not, but scripture tells us that justice will come in the end, once for all.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

EVEN AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN! Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

1 Tim. 4:1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

If things are occurring today in Christianity that oppose what was already written to us, IT IS WRONG. IT IS OF SATAN. The path to eternal life is indeed narrow, as Jesus said. Or look at the parable of the wheat and tares...there are tares amongst the true kingdom of God.
We have to follow God carefully, there is not multiple ways to heaven. Only one way.

So you don't take literally, or apply, Paul's words about women being silent; only his words that he does not allow a woman to usurp authority? Ok.

I do take Paul's words at face value. However, scripture elsewhere provides exceptions, such as singing as I mentioned before.

I disagree with your interpretation of some verses of Scripture - there's a difference.

The passages speak for themselves. I have not twisted them or used fanciful explanations to prove my points...scripture is clear. If you are offended within your heart, then it is probably your conscience telling you that the words you are reading are to be taken as they are, that you're wrong.

I don't believe it does.
Otherwise you are saying that some Christian women can see for themselves what Scripture says but choose to deliberately disobey it, and are clever enough to persuade male clergy that whatever they think Scripture means; it doesn't, and they need to ordain women ASAP.

It's either flattering that you think that some women are that clever, or outrageous that you think that they would go to those lengths to disobey God and cause men to sin, just so that they could get what they wanted. And all the while God is watching and saying, "oh I really didn't want that to happen; what can I do about it?"

What I said is that scripture does draw lines (as i've shown some of them), but it doesn't explicitly state every single possibility of application...
My point was that scripture isn't always black and white for minute details and that personal conscience does come into play, but that's getting into bit of a different topic (see Romans 14 if you're curious).

Exactly.
When Scripture teaches headship and submission it is talking about the marriage relationship, not the role between Minister and congregation.

?
All women, not just those married, were told to be submissive in 1 Tim 2. Therefore headship is not just within the marriage.
1 Tim 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Once again, scripture speaks for itself.

Side-note,
the idea of "quietness"/"silence" is debated...but it most likely does not mean literally making no sound, as women are commanded to sing is Col. 3, etc. So what we can derive is that is has to do with teaching...males are to be the teachers and women are to learn in respectable attitudes.

Except you don't take Paul's words about women being silent at face value.

(Repeated statement): I do take Paul's words at face value. However, scripture elsewhere provides exceptions, such as singing as I mentioned before.

I take God's word at face value to the point that I can within the context of other limitations/exceptions as presented by scripture. I don't have any other choice, that's how you reconcile and balance God's words without adding your own personal conjecture.

I have no reason not to take God's statements at face value, unless He has explained to me that I shouldn't, by scripture.

God's nature, God's love and the Gospel never change and will always stand. This matter of female ordination is not doctrine, or a teaching as such, doesn't pertain to salvation and is not even that important. Some people sincerely and adamantly believe that women are not to preach or be ordained, and found, or work in, churches with that belief. Others adamantly believe that God calls women both to preach and to ordination, and allow women to use their gifts and respond to their calling. If both "sides" accept the Gospel, trust in the Lord Jesus for salvation and are filled with his Spirit, they will all meet in heaven.

It's very important. Everything in God's word is very important. And it's interesting that in Timothy there women are "preserved" or "saved" (same word used in Mat 1:21 about Jesus saving people from sins).
15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Going against male headship is going against God's design of nature and His plan...it's a sin. Just like homosexuality is going against God's design of nature and will.

No.
As I said, male headship as taught by Paul, refers to marriage, not leading in a church. Adam was not ordained and Eve a lay person. Even if Adam was responsible for his wife's relationship with God and spiritual condition - and he didn't do a very good job - it was as her husband, not her Minister.

Yes, as I proved earlier.

I sincerely suggest that you take a look at these passages again in a room alone by yourself, after having drop all per-conceived notions that you have previously held. And drop anything else that you've been taught...by your parents, by your preachers...even forget everything that I have explained to you over the past couple weeks (except for this final statement), and pray....and then read all these passages again, being led by God.
You will be surprised as to what learn.

There is no reason NOT to believe that the majority of scripture is eternal....outside the boundaries of society and culture. There is no reason to assume that Paul's teachings are only local or for that time period. Our modern day skewed retro-spect has taught us so, and all the sudden we are sifting out so many teachings in the bible because we make false assumptions when we have no evidence to disregard them

 

[Brokenhill]

Edit: Never mind, it appears to be correct now...

 

[Strong in Him]

First of all, what you (and many women today) don't understand is that just because women can't be in certain positions of authority in the church does NOT mean that they are UNIMPORTANT or LESSER Christians, etc. Just because women have a different role, doesn't mean that it is an inferior role.

I do understand that - but I am disputing that women can't have those roles today.

Women are called by God today to be preachers, Ministers, chaplains, even Bishops. I know some of them; I know that they are born again, Spirit filled Christians, who love the Lord, want to serve him and have been/are asking for his guidance in their lives. I've heard some of their testimonies - about how ordination was the last thing on their minds, but that God spoke, prodded, guided and opened doors until they responded to that call and began to serve him in that way. I've been in churches led by women. I've learnt from them, learnt about my faith and grown spiritually - I know, and have known, others who will say the same.
And I'm not talking about one or two women who grew up with me and happen to think the same as me. Women have been called to serve God in this way for years, and have been preaching for far, far longer.

Second, before proceeding I want to lay down one foundational concept to God's plan, and I will let the scripture speak for itself.
Deut. 4:
“1Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Read that again; who is it addressed to? Israel. God had given Israel laws and commands so that they could live in the Promised Land as his people. He telling the nation that they were to keep all the laws he had given them, through Moses, and not try to change them by adding things of their own or taking anything away.
Firstly, I am neither adding to, nor subtracting from, Scripture; secondly, we don't keep all those laws - food and hygiene laws - that God gave his people at that time. So that wasn't really the best example to give.

Revelation 22:
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Again, I am neither adding to, nor subtracting from, the words of Scripture.
Though it should be noted that some people believe those words apply to the book of Revelation. No one should add to, or subtract from, the vision that had been given to John, i.e "the words of prophecy of THIS book". People would have read those words and not automatically applied them to the whole of the Bible, because they didn't have it.

Qualifications of elders + deacons,
1 Tim. 3:
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so * that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Women cannot be husbands. Therefore, deacons and elders are men only.

"1 Tim. 3:
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,"

The husband of ONE wife - not many, as some had at that time.
So an overseer must be married; maybe someone should tell the Pope that.

"temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money."

Absolutely, they should set an example.
So you would oppose the appointment of any male overseer who was not hospitable, who liked a drink, loved money and did not have a prudent, or gentle nature?

"4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)"

So a deacon/overseer should not only be a married man but have children too, and be able to control them. The number of people able to hold this office is growing smaller by the minute.

"7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. "

So any bishop/overseer who cannot relate to those outside the church and does not have a good reputation with them, should be asked to leave his role.

"Women cannot be husbands. Therefore, deacons and elders are men only."

That doesn't follow; Phoebe was a deacon.
If God had commanded that women should not be elders and deacons he is perfectly capable of saying so plainly - "this is my command that women should not lead the church", for example. He would not give a list of qualities and say, "read between the lines, this PROVES that women cannot lead and will never be able to."

Phoebe was a servant of Christ. Yes, I realize the Greek word is the same word as the deacon used the aforementioned verse. But there is a distinction made in the English versions, because the translators knew that there was a difference.

Not according to my Greek/English dictionary there isn't.
The word that is used about Phoebe is used of Paul, the deacons in Acts 6 and even the Lord Jesus himself, and can be translated as servant or deacon. Those chosen in Acts 6 were chosen to serve the widows, wait on tables and sort out some of the problems arising so that the 12 were freed up to preach the Gospel and do what they were called to do. Jesus said that the Son had come, not to be served but to serve - same word. Phoebe was also a diaoknos, a servant. That word has been translated as deacon. In some churches a deacon is someone who leads, wears a dog collar, is ordained etc, but Scripture doesn't say that any of this defines a deacon.

However, only men are authorized to the office of elder/deacon/preacher in the body of Christ. Read the beginning of Acts 6, seven men were chosen for the service of widows in need at that local congregation...I believe it's reasonable to conclude that that additionally supports the idea of a deacon office, as those men were appointed.

Scripture also says that all men have sinned, that all men will be judge etc etc - does this mean that women are excluded from salvation? In the OT, women could not be circumcised - did that mean they were excluded form God's promises and from being children of the covenant?

I don't think it's ok to read Scripture and draw our own conclusions abut what it meant then and how it applies to us today.

If male headship is expected in the marriage, then why would it be any different in the church?

A Minister is not the same as a husband. Being a Minister is a calling and vocation, but the bottom line is that it is also a job. Ministers get paid, may get pay rises, can get promotions, can resign, retire or be sacked or disciplined. A church may, and no doubt will, have many ministers - may two or three at once if the church is big enough.
A marriage is a relationship between two people. It is meant to be for life and, though there may be some financial benefits, a husband doesn't get paid as such. One of the reasons for marriage is to bring children into the world - the Bible says that sex is for those who are married.
Ministers may marry couples, provide pre, or post, marriage counselling, and even instruct the couple of their individual responsibilities in that relationship. But they cannot lead, interfere in, or be head of another couple's marriage.

The church is often referred to as a bride and the relationship between Christ and his church is likened to a marriage - the church is the wife and Jesus Christ the husband. But that doesn't mean that a Minister is a husband and the congregation his wife - otherwise ALL male Christians would have to be ordained, and all congregations would be made up of women.

If Jesus wanted women to be leaders in His body, he would have said so...or he would have shown so. Christ led by example. Christ was a male. Christ selected 13 men to be apostles and then God selected another male to be an apostle to fill Judas' place. In the beginning it was a patriarchal society, during the Law of Moses it was male-led (note particularly the temple service...all men). And then John the Baptist + Jesus and the new ministry was all male led. Jesus would have chosen a women if that's what God's will was. It wasn't.

Jesus only chose Jews, and was himself Jewish. That doesn't mean that he didn't talk to, relate to, serve and love gentiles.
When was the last time you heard a Minister say, "I need to resign; Jesus only chose Jews so I shouldn't be here"?

Jesus did lead by example, he showed the world how to treat women.
Mary sat at his feet and listened to him; that place was reserved for the male student Rabbis, to learn from their masters. Women were not allowed to learn, their role was to be like Martha. Yet Jesus not only allowed Mary to learn from him, he commended her for doing so.
Mary Magdalene was chosen to be the first witness to the resurrection - not the male "leaders" who were all in hiding. A woman was considered to be an unreliable witness, not to be trusted. Jesus trusted Mary and chose and allowed her to witness.
Women could be easily divorced, Jesus reminded people that men and women were both made in the image of God, and it was he who brought them together to be one flesh.
Jesus loved, taught, healed and forgave women and allowed them to follow him, support him financially, proclaim his word and tell others about him. He commanded people to love as he loves.

To be continued.

 

[Strong in Him]

Continued.

-First of all you seem to be implying that Paul not necessarily giving God's commands but his own.

No!
I said that I am certain that Paul's words were inspired, God given words, God's solution or will - to those people, at that time, in those circumstances and that situation.

What I'm asking is "where does Scripture say that we HAVE to apply those words to our churches today, in a different culture and different circumstances? Where does it say that THESE words are a direct, permanent command from God that we have to apply today?

-You're almost being hypocritical. You're requiring me to show a verse that specifically states "no women, not ever", when you cannot provide me a scripture that says women will be leaders or called by God specifically in the future to be elders, deacons, preachers, etc. It's not in scripture.

No, the NT doesn't instruct the church how it is to behave and be governed in the future; that is not its purpose. So Jesus never said, "you must not use mobile phones, visual aids, technology that hasn't been invented yet."
But if God NEVER wanted, or planned for, women to be leaders/teachers, then he would have specifically said so.

There are many statements in Scripture which never change and never will change - e.g God is love, Christ died for sinners, Jesus has reconciled us to God, the Spirit confirms that we are children of God, Jesus told his disciples to make other disciples and to speak about him, Christ is head of his church and has given us all gifts to serve him, Jesus has commanded us to love as he loves. These, and others, are unchanging truths about God, salvation, the church's mission, God's will and so on. IF "my church must never be led by a woman" was also an unchanging truth and/or command then it would be CLEARLY taught; by Jesus and by the church. Paul would have written clearly in every one of his letters "God commands that women cannot lead", and made it very clear what the consequences were if we disobeyed - just as God told the Israelites what would happen if they worshipped other gods, broke his covenant and so on. He told them then to write his laws on their foreheads and teach them to their children. All through the OT we have prophets reminding people of God's covenant with them, urging them to keep it and saying that God would punish them if they didn't - because he loved them and wanted them, his people, to obey him. In the OT we see people being rebuked, injured, taken into exile or even killed because they tried to live their lives in opposition to God's clearly stated laws. Don't you think that if God didn't want women to lead his church that he would have made it just as clear? Don't you think that if he HAD said, "women can never lead my church" and some were doing it today - permitted by men - that God could not punish and correct them in the same way?

I sincerely suggest that you take a look at these passages again in a room alone by yourself, after having drop all per-conceived notions that you have previously held. And drop anything else that you've been taught...by your parents, by your preachers...even forget everything that I have explained to you over the past couple weeks (except for this final statement), and pray....and then read all these passages again, being led by God.

I haven't got time to answer the rest of your post, but
a) how do you know that my "preconceived ideas" were not formed after a careful, prayerful reading of Scripture, and that I haven't been led by God to the conclusions that I have reached?
b) it's not possible for me to "drop everything else that I've been taught" - just as, I suspect, it isn't for you. I am not a Minister and not called to be one, but I am a lay preacher, have been for 9 years and know that I was, and am, called by God to do this. I'm not sure if your objections are to female Ministers or female preachers, so you may be ok with my testimony. But I can't forget, drop, change or repent of the fact that I have been leading services and preaching the Gospel for over 10 years, (including training.) Deny how God is, and has been, speaking to, inspiring, leading and helping me? No - why should I and why would anyone want me to?

 

[Brokenhill]

You keep contradicting yourself.

What makes certain NT passages only applicable to the 1st century Christians (or only to a local body), and not other passages? With what you're saying, the entirety of scripture is subjective and can be read selectively. We might as well throw out the entire book.
You're basically suggesting that everyone in the church who makes decisions based only on their personal relationship with God, being "spoke" to or "prodded" by him, is a more correct way than following certain NT passages.

That is chaos...common sense rejects that idea. Because you say that women are being specifically called to be ministers. Well, some man could say God is specifically calling him to be a minister and teach against women ministers. Instant contradiction.

So who would be right? Well, seeing as people in the years 2016 only know about God in the first place because of the Bible, the Bible is the ultimate authority as to what "truth" is defined as.

2 Timothy 4: "1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry"

You are the one with itching ears!

If God is "calling people" to do things that are against His authorized words...then GOD ISNT really calling is He? It's satan...satan is constantly working to confuse and split apart the church.
That's why we have a million different denominations and sects...it's pathetic...THE CHURCH IS ITS OWN WORSE ENEMY unfortunately. But that's not because of God, that's because of man.

God doesn't desire that. And though you think if that was really the case then God would put a stop to it...He doesn't yet because He's waiting...He's exercising PATIENCE with the world because of His mercy. And glory to Him for it! The world needs it.
And He doesn't have to miraculously prove what's right and wrong today anyway... HE ALREADY DID THAT--we only need the bible today. That's all we need...


There's no point in responding to all your individual comments. You are selectively choosing (on purpose) which words of the Bible to follow.
What gives you the right to do that? What scripture grants that desire? None.
It doesn't say anywhere in scripture that the teachings of the NT "are only for a limited time or certain places in history". So what gives you the right to apply those boundaries?

I'm deeply,
deeply,
saddened by the state of modern "Christianity".
But I shouldn't be shocked...God said this would happen in the verse mentioned above.

The "church" is it's own worst enemy. That's why so many people fail to believe or even give us a minute of their time.

God be merciful to us all. We so desperately need it.

 

[Strong in Him]

You keep contradicting yourself.

What makes certain NT passages only applicable to the 1st century Christians (or only to a local body), and not other passages? With what you're saying, the entirety of scripture is subjective and can be read selectively. We might as well throw out the entire book.

No I don't, and no I'm not.

I'm saying that there are different kinds of writing in the Bible - poetry, letters, Gospels, history, prophecy, Psalms, apocalyptic writings etc. They all teach, and reveal, God; his nature, his works, his will, his love, holiness, his relationship with us. They also tell us about God's people; how they became his people, in the OT, how he wanted them to live, be his witnesses, obey his laws and the successes, and failures they had in doing so. The NT tells us about Jesus, what he taught about God, himself, his purpose in coming (to lay down his life for his sheep), how we can be born again and receive him and have eternal life. The NT epistles show how the early church taught this faith, put it into practice, the problems they faced in standing up for, and defending, this new faith, the NEW covenant that Jesus came to bring. They tell us how we are to live as God's people - in Jesus, with our lives centred on him.
All this writing is true; I don't believe that God would allow mistakes into his revelation and word. But it is not to be read in the same way, and some of it was only for the people to whom it was written; not necessarily to be applied to us.

For example, Paul wrote to the Corinthians;
"After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you – for I will be going through Macedonia. 6 Perhaps I will stay with you for a while, or even spend the winter, so that you can help me on my journey, wherever I go. 7 For I do not want to see you now and make only a passing visit;" 1 Corinthians 16:5-7
He also wrote;
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

I suggest that no one reads, and understands, these verses in the same way.
The latter is teaching about the qualities of love. This is what love is and does, this is what God, who is love, is like and this is what we, who are commanded to love, should aspire to.
The former of these verses are personal words to the Corinthians; Paul is telling them that he hopes to stay with them on his travels. Can we apply these words to us today in the same way that we apply the words about love? Of course not - none of us can prepare for a visit from the apostle Paul; even if he were alive today, he doesn't know any of us and would have no reason to visit us. Paul writes other personal stuff as well - "bring my coat and scrolls", for example, or "I will send Epaphroditus to you". The whole of the book of Philemon is a request to someone to receive a slave back and not punish him. Do you apply any of these things today? Have you been to Israel to look for Paul's cloak so that you can give it to him? Of course not. These verses are in Scripture, they are interesting, maybe even instructive, but we can't apply them to ourselves or try to live by them, as we can 1 Corinthians 13, Romans 5 or John 10, for example.

Would you stop reading 1 Corinthians because you can't apply, and live by, the personal remarks in chapter 16 in the same way that you can the words of chapter 13? I hope not. And suggesting we throw out the whole Bible because there are some personal remarks that weren't written to us and are therefore not for us, seems equally extreme, and rather ridiculous.

You're basically suggesting that everyone in the church who makes decisions based only on their personal relationship with God, being "spoke" to or "prodded" by him, is a more correct way than following certain NT passages.

No I'm not.
I'm saying that God speaks to us, wants us to serve him, has called us and given us gifts to do so, just as much today as in NT times.
He has asked some of us to serve him by preaching his word, and the Gospel, and has asked some to serve him by being ordained, teaching and caring for a church congregation. This is, and has been happening. But God wouldn't call someone to do something that he had already expressly forbidden. Or lead a Christian, one of his children, into disobedience - because he has promised to lead us in paths of righteousness.
So, the most logical conclusion is that the few verses in Scripture which seem to frown on this practice have been misunderstood and/or misapplied.
Of course, people aren't always prepared to accept that they, or their understanding, may be wrong.

That is chaos...common sense rejects that idea. Because you say that women are being specifically called to be ministers.

Some are. Some of them are members of this forum. Some of them may live near you, or in your country. Have you ever talked to any of them? Have you ever heard their testimonies about God's calling and guidance, or how he has, and is, working in their lives? Or is it just easier to dismiss all of them as being disobedient to Scripture?

Well, some man could say God is specifically calling him to be a minister and teach against women ministers. Instant contradiction.

Yes, a man who is called to be a Minister/Priest could teach that women should not be allowed to be ordained. He could also teach that we should believe the Prosperity Gospel, not baptise babies, speak in tongues, and a number of other things, and quote Scripture to prove his point.
But none of these things, women preachers included, change or affect the Gospel or are necessary for salvation.
We sometimes get so hung up on all the denominational trappings that we forget this. Jesus told us to make disciples, teach them everything he had taught them, and baptise. He did not say "teach that my church is only valid if led by a man", or "anyone who baptises babies, or those below a certain age, is wrong".

So who would be right? Well, seeing as people in the years 2016 only know about God in the first place because of the Bible, the Bible is the ultimate authority as to what "truth" is defined as.

JESUS is truth. The Gospel, which is centred on Jesus, and testified to by the Spirit of truth, is truth.

2 Timothy 4: "1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry"

You are the one with itching ears!

Allowing women to be preachers and Minsters is NOT doctrine.
It wasn't taught by Jesus, it's not in the creed, it can't save, give eternal life, confirm us as children of God, transform us in Jesus' image and likeness, separate us form God's love - or condemn us to hell.

And if by "itching ears" you are saying that I believe only what I want to believe; that is rubbish.

If God is "calling people" to do things that are against His authorized words...then GOD ISNT really calling is He?

God won't call anyone to do something which is against his word and which he has forbidden. The point I'm making is that because he IS calling women to do this, then that means that he has not forbidden it in his word.
But like I said it is easier for some people to dismiss all women preachers/Ministers as deluded, disobedient or feminists than admit that they have misread, or misunderstood, certain verses of Scripture.

It's satan...satan is constantly working to confuse and split apart the church.

Seriously?
You think Satan would call, and allow, people to preach the Gospel and the cross, teach spiritual warfare, or that he was defeated at the cross and will one day be eternally condemned? You think he wants people to learn theses things, come to Jesus, have eternal life and become God's children, NEVER to be separated from God's love or snatched out of his hands? You think Satan wants to help people find God? I don't think so.

And just a word of warning, it is not wise to hear something that people say is from God - in this case, a call to Ministry - and attribute it tom the devil. You can say that you believe they are mistaken, or that they need to make sure they are not confusing their own desires with God's voice - those are valid points to raise. But attributing the work of God to the power of Satan is not on, and very unwise.

There's no point in responding to all your individual comments. You are selectively choosing (on purpose) which words of the Bible to follow.

That's a judgement.
You are saying "this Christian woman knows perfectly well what God wants and what the Bible teaches, but is ignoring it because it does not fit with her own, human, beliefs and desires."
That is wrong, judgemental and offensive.

I'm deeply,
deeply,
saddened by the state of modern "Christianity".

I'm saddened, and offended, by people who teach that unless you believe, obey and obey ALL the Bible literally and uphold it ALL, word for word - which I don't believe you do, see my first examples - then they are doubting God, picking and choosing what they will believe and have a call that actually comes from Satan.

But the point is that if we believe the Gospel and belong to Jesus, we'll both be in heaven.

 

[Brokenhill]

No I don't, and no I'm not.

I'm saying that there are different kinds of writing in the Bible - poetry, letters, Gospels, history, prophecy, Psalms, apocalyptic writings etc. They all teach, and reveal, God; his nature, his works, his will, his love, holiness, his relationship with us. They also tell us about God's people; how they became his people, in the OT, how he wanted them to live, be his witnesses, obey his laws and the successes, and failures they had in doing so. The NT tells us about Jesus, what he taught about God, himself, his purpose in coming (to lay down his life for his sheep), how we can be born again and receive him and have eternal life. The NT epistles show how the early church taught this faith, put it into practice, the problems they faced in standing up for, and defending, this new faith, the NEW covenant that Jesus came to bring. They tell us how we are to live as God's people - in Jesus, with our lives centred on him.
All this writing is true; I don't believe that God would allow mistakes into his revelation and word. But it is not to be read in the same way, and some of it was only for the people to whom it was written; not necessarily to be applied to us.

For example, Paul wrote to the Corinthians;
"After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you – for I will be going through Macedonia. 6 Perhaps I will stay with you for a while, or even spend the winter, so that you can help me on my journey, wherever I go. 7 For I do not want to see you now and make only a passing visit;" 1 Corinthians 16:5-7
He also wrote;
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

I suggest that no one reads, and understands, these verses in the same way.
The latter is teaching about the qualities of love. This is what love is and does, this is what God, who is love, is like and this is what we, who are commanded to love, should aspire to.
The former of these verses are personal words to the Corinthians; Paul is telling them that he hopes to stay with them on his travels. Can we apply these words to us today in the same way that we apply the words about love? Of course not - none of us can prepare for a visit from the apostle Paul; even if he were alive today, he doesn't know any of us and would have no reason to visit us. Paul writes other personal stuff as well - "bring my coat and scrolls", for example, or "I will send Epaphroditus to you". The whole of the book of Philemon is a request to someone to receive a slave back and not punish him. Do you apply any of these things today? Have you been to Israel to look for Paul's cloak so that you can give it to him? Of course not. These verses are in Scripture, they are interesting, maybe even instructive, but we can't apply them to ourselves or try to live by them, as we can 1 Corinthians 13, Romans 5 or John 10, for example.

Would you stop reading 1 Corinthians because you can't apply, and live by, the personal remarks in chapter 16 in the same way that you can the words of chapter 13? I hope not. And suggesting we throw out the whole Bible because there are some personal remarks that weren't written to us and are therefore not for us, seems equally extreme, and rather ridiculous.

"Doctrine" has a certain connotation today, but really it just means "teaching" (n.).
Jesus appeared to and chose Paul, among others, to be an apostle, and gave Paul the Holy Spirit to then teach Christians how to live their lives.

Some principal can be learned from nearly every section within the bible, or used as some form of evidence to back our faith. Even your mentioning of Paul's cloak.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. However, I believe you wrongly decide which verses are not applicable today.
All the teachings on male headship, looking at their context, gives no indication that it is just personal remarks to a physically limited specific group of people. In fact, passages like 1 Cor. 11 prove the opposite. Paul appeals to creation in that passage. When creation is appealed to, it's teaching something that is universal/eternal...Jesus, in Mat. 19, appeals to creation when condemning divorce for any reason other than adultery. (Side note, notice in Mat 19 that it only mentions a man divorcing hiis wife, not the other way around).

Paul was teaching to Christians. Period. He wasn't giving a specific command to a specific person or group, he was to us all, just like in 1 Cor 13 on love. Long-standing truths to live by.

2 Tim 3: "14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

All scripture, including male headship, is profitable for training in righteousness. And note how even wisdom of the OT also LEADS TO SALVATION.

I hear people say all the time "such and such isn't a matter of salvation"--and I understand what they're saying and somewhat agree with them. But at the same time, to be realistic, everything we do has to do with salvation...we're going to be judged by every action and word we use.

No I'm not.
I'm saying that God speaks to us, wants us to serve him, has called us and given us gifts to do so, just as much today as in NT times.
He has asked some of us to serve him by preaching his word, and the Gospel, and has asked some to serve him by being ordained, teaching and caring for a church congregation. This is, and has been happening. But God wouldn't call someone to do something that he had already expressly forbidden. Or lead a Christian, one of his children, into disobedience - because he has promised to lead us in paths of righteousness.
So, the most logical conclusion is that the few verses in Scripture which seem to frown on this practice have been misunderstood and/or misapplied.
Of course, people aren't always prepared to accept that they, or their understanding, may be wrong.



Some are. Some of them are members of this forum. Some of them may live near you, or in your country. Have you ever talked to any of them? Have you ever heard their testimonies about God's calling and guidance, or how he has, and is, working in their lives? Or is it just easier to dismiss all of them as being disobedient to Scripture?



Yes, a man who is called to be a Minister/Priest could teach that women should not be allowed to be ordained. He could also teach that we should believe the Prosperity Gospel, not baptise babies, speak in tongues, and a number of other things, and quote Scripture to prove his point.
But none of these things, women preachers included, change or affect the Gospel or are necessary for salvation.
We sometimes get so hung up on all the denominational trappings that we forget this. Jesus told us to make disciples, teach them everything he had taught them, and baptise. He did not say "teach that my church is only valid if led by a man", or "anyone who baptises babies, or those below a certain age, is wrong".


JESUS is truth. The Gospel, which is centred on Jesus, and testified to by the Spirit of truth, is truth.



Allowing women to be preachers and Minsters is NOT doctrine.
It wasn't taught by Jesus, it's not in the creed, it can't save, give eternal life, confirm us as children of God, transform us in Jesus' image and likeness, separate us form God's love - or condemn us to hell.

And if by "itching ears" you are saying that I believe only what I want to believe; that is rubbish.



God won't call anyone to do something which is against his word and which he has forbidden. The point I'm making is that because he IS calling women to do this, then that means that he has not forbidden it in his word.
But like I said it is easier for some people to dismiss all women preachers/Ministers as deluded, disobedient or feminists than admit that they have misread, or misunderstood, certain verses of Scripture.



Seriously?
You think Satan would call, and allow, people to preach the Gospel and the cross, teach spiritual warfare, or that he was defeated at the cross and will one day be eternally condemned? You think he wants people to learn theses things, come to Jesus, have eternal life and become God's children, NEVER to be separated from God's love or snatched out of his hands? You think Satan wants to help people find God? I don't think so.

And just a word of warning, it is not wise to hear something that people say is from God - in this case, a call to Ministry - and attribute it tom the devil. You can say that you believe they are mistaken, or that they need to make sure they are not confusing their own desires with God's voice - those are valid points to raise. But attributing the work of God to the power of Satan is not on, and very unwise.



That's a judgement.
You are saying "this Christian woman knows perfectly well what God wants and what the Bible teaches, but is ignoring it because it does not fit with her own, human, beliefs and desires."
That is wrong, judgemental and offensive.



I'm saddened, and offended, by people who teach that unless you believe, obey and obey ALL the Bible literally and uphold it ALL, word for word - which I don't believe you do, see my first examples - then they are doubting God, picking and choosing what they will believe and have a call that actually comes from Satan.

But the point is that if we believe the Gospel and belong to Jesus, we'll both be in heaven.

I agree that there are denominational trappings. But Jesus, through Paul, taught male headship. And Jesus, through Peter and Paul, etc., taught that one must believe, repent, confess, be baptized, keep the faith/grow in wisdom, and forgive others to inherit eternal life. A baby cannot repent, a baby cannot confess, a baby cannot choose to be baptized as the Ethiopian eunuch chose to be baptized. Therefor, yes, one who baptizes a baby is wrong--it's against GOD'S WORD, nothing to do with denominational doctrine. It's the teaching of God, not man.
______
In general, I try not to make things personal, but I do have the right to. I am commanded by the bible to teach truth, refute falsity...I have the right (and expectation) to JUDGE.

1 Cor 5:
"12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."

I have no right to judge those in the world, but I do have the right to judge those who within the body of Christ.
______
If something contradicts God's word, then it is not of God.

Jesus says bluntly:
Mat 12:
"30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."
Mat 7:
"21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"

Is that not intense? EVEN THOSE WHO PERFORM MIRACLES, who thought they were on God's side, weren't.

Good intentions doesn't save us the Grace, the blood of Christ, and a working faith based on knowledge does:
Hosea 4:
6:My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children."

God desires to know ALL His law...

Sure, none of us are perfect, none of us will ever reach a point where we have fulfilled every minute detail of God's wishes and desires--that's where the blood comes in--however, God wants us to try.
Even when things are hard to understand, or hard to swallow, God wants us to take down our pride and trust Him.

Personally, just fleshly Steven speaking here, I would really enjoy being a stay-at-home dad, while my wife is off working. Hanging out with the kids, teachings them stuff, going out having fun, taking care of the house...that actually sounds good to me. However, God wants me to work and be a provider for my house-hold and he wants my wife to be a caretaker of the home. So I will work and generate income.
And I could argue that because of my talents of teachings young kids, and cleanliness, etc. that it would seem that it would be my calling to be a homemaker. But God's expectation of me is different--He wants me to be a leader, and if I don't know how, He wants me to learn.

Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So yes I really really do think that satan uses whatever tactics he can to mislead people...he helps people THINK they are saved, when they are not. If we can't find it in inspired scripture, then it doesn't amount to much, if anything.

I don't doubt that people have spiritual experiences, but we are supposed to TEST the spirits (1 JOhn 4)...they are not all from God, though they seem to be...
____
But I want to reiterate that for all of us, it's a work in progress...
Truth is something that is uncovered over time, not just discovered in the whole. We all have things to learn and have to grow based on what we learn. I'm certainly not perfect...I certainly don't have a perfect understanding of scripture. But thankfully, scripture speaks for itself, that's why we can all learn from it regardless of our upbringing or educational background. God intended for us to be able to understand.