Are women inferior to men?

[Brokenhill]

Oh, and I wouldn't under-estimate the OT. Jesus is rooted in the OT, the principals such as Love in 1 Cor 13 that you mentioned are rooted in the OT.
Earlier you said that Deut. 4 was a poor choice of evidence, but in fact it was a great choice--the idea of taking God's word in it's entirety and accepting it plainly is seen all the way back in the Torah, to the last time we have Jesus' words directly seen in the Bible (Revelation).

And we can still learn from the Levitical laws of uncleanness, even though we may not be under those commandments today.
____

But anyway, I think we might as well just agree to disagree...we're just going to keep going in circles. But just know that I have no personal animosity against you.

Thank you for discussing these things with me, challenging me, so I can stay in my bible and learn.

 

[Strong in Him]

"Doctrine" has a certain connotation today, but really it just means "teaching" (n.).

Yes, it may do. But generally in the church, it refers to the Gospel and matters relating to the creed - deity of Christ, trinity and so on. These are matters that all Christian denominations agree on. If someone said, "what is a Christian?", these beliefs and tenets would feature in the answer.

Whether or not the Gospel may be proclaimed by a woman is not doctrine. Different churches believe, and practice, different things relating to this - but they are still Christian.

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.

"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching ....." 2 Timothy 3:16

What the verses about Paul's cloak, etc, teach me is that the Bible was written by real people, not dictated to robots, or written in heaven and given to mankind in it's completed form. The fact that Paul once left his cloak behind and asked someone else to bring it to him, has nothing to do with the Gospel and does not help me at all in my Christian faith - except in the way I mentioned.

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.

But that was the culture of their day.
It seems that it WAS disgraceful for men to have long hair then, just as it was for women to have short hair. (And how long is 'long' anyway?) I read somewhere that prostitutes were identified by their short hair. These days, hair length is an individual choice - I am fairly sure that anyone who judged someone's status, faith or character by the length of their hair, would be criticised for doing so.

I don't see that a woman preaching in, or who is a Minister of, a church is anything to do with headship - because men will be involved in her training and ordination, and also because very often, those who are "higher up" or in authority over her, will be men.
Ultimately God has all authority and it is he who gives it.

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).

Which is another example of what I've been saying. In those days a woman could not divorce her husband; she did not have that right. Scripture does not address the issue of women divorcing their husbands because it didn't happen.

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.

So the length of a man's hair is a "long standing truth"? Paul's words about women not wearing gold is a "long standing truth"? If so, then we shouldn't have weddings in churches unless the Bride has a silver, or platinum, ring. Maybe we should also ban and ostracise women who have dreadlocks, or wear their hair in plaits - since Paul told them not to.

Scripture is written TO us, it is not necessarily FOR all of us - ie that we apply every word to our lives today. The general principals - that we should dress with decency, not ostentatiously, or in such a way that draws attention to our bodies or our wealth - is, I think, still true. Some would argue even over that; if a woman likes to wear a really short skirt, that is how she dresses and expresses herself, then why suppress that in church, as God accepts us as we are and for who we are. Paul's words provide teaching - "listen guys, people are in church to worship God and to look at him; not you. So don't distract them." But he doesn't lay down rules, or commandments, for us.

All scripture, including male headship, is profitable for training in righteousness.

Like I said, I don't believe that a woman leading a church is about male headship, or a threat to it.

If you had a situation with a female minister, who had a female dean/superintendent, a female bishop and that everyone all the way up the line to the archbishop or whatever the top person was called, was female, then it MIGHT be right to ask that question. But no woman goes in and says "right, out you lot; I'm taking over this church". As I said, men are consulted about a woman's call, they advise, pray for and are actively involved in a woman's training.

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, we're going to be asked to give an account of our lives, how we have used our gifts, responded to God's call etc, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, 2 Corinthians 5:11. We are not going to be judged for our sins, because Jesus has died for those and taken our punishment.

To be continued.

 

[Strong in Him]

Continued.

I agree that there are denominational trappings. But Jesus, through Paul, taught male headship.

Male headship in marriage, yes.
Male headship in the church, no. Because Jesus did not say, or show, that only men may lead, that women cannot proclaim the Gospel and so on.

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.

A baby cannot choose to be circumcised, or a Jew, either - yet Jewish male babies have always been circumcised when they were 8 days old. Most babies today are considerably older than this - some may be 3 or 4 years old.
It's not entirely against Scripture, as we are told in several places that men were baptised, and their whole households along with them. True, Scripture doesn't say "and some of these were babies", but it doesn't NOT say that either. Personally I think baptising babies is a good picture of God's grace - it's there for all of us, we don't need to do anything to earn it and God's love. Adult baptism is a response to God's grace and salvation - especially if the person confesses Jesus as Saviour and Lord and testifies to how they have been saved. It is a beautiful sacrament and I'm not knocking it; but infant baptism is just as valid. Neither baptism actually saves - even an adult could be just going through the motions or saying what they think someone wants to hear. Jesus saves; he may save adults who have been born again but not baptised, and he may save babies who have not been baptised and then die, (and I believe he does both). We can have salvation without baptism but we can't have salvation without Jesus.

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.

That all depends on what sort of judgment it is.
Judging false doctrine, teachings that are against the Gospel and challenge the deity of Christ or validity of his salvation - yes.
Judging the testimony of a born again believer and child of God about how God has called them and is working in their lives - no. Challenge them maybe; ask questions, say why you disagree or if you understand Scripture differently, but judging them to be saved, true believers, Spirit filled or anything else - no.

If something contradicts God's word, then it is not of God.

Generally yes - unless by "God's word" you are talking about some of the examples I mentioned earlier.
You surely don't really believe that women who have short hair, or men who have long, are going against God's word and therefore not of God? Or that women who wear gold jewellery and pearls are not of God? Or that people who don't literally greet their female guests by ripping their tights off and sticking their feet in a bowl of hot water are contradicting God's word?

Jesus says bluntly:
Mat 12:
"30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

Seriously?
You're saying that anyone who recognises that a woman may be called by God to be a Minister in a church is against Jesus? Wow!

"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.

Yes, and what is God's will?
John 6:40, "For it is my Father's will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him will have eternal life."

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.

Yes. And that could refer to people who aren't really saved, or who are churchgoers only or playing at being Christians. Satan can replicate miracles and will do everything he can to prevent people from coming to the Lord Jesus, being forgiven and saved from sin, born again as children of God and filled with his Spirit, who is a guarantee of their inheritance, 2 Corinthians 1:20; 2 Corinthians 5:5.
It doesn't mean that those who know Jesus as their Saviour, trust in him, have eternal life and are filled with his Spirit will be condemned to hell if they have misunderstood his guidance or how he was speaking to them.

Good intentions doesn't save us the Grace, the blood of Christ, and a working faith based on knowledge does:

Absolutely - what saves us was never in question.
Having women Ministers can neither save nor condemn us.

God desires to know ALL His law...

And if it was his law that women should never lead a church congregation, ever; he would have spelt it out clearly in his word, in every book or letter and it would have been taught, and modelled, by Jesus. He would make absolutely sure that everyone knew his law - otherwise how could he justly judge those who disobeyed it?
For example, "you shall not kill". Almost no one would question this, say they don't know how to interpret it, or that it was only for those in the NT. I say "almost no one" only because there are some who claim to believe the OT but who would say that killing someone who brings dishonour to their family, is allowed. Or that it's ok to murder those of other faiths. But generally speaking, no Christian would doubt that this is God's law and command.
But the teaching that women can be preachers and/or ministers and that God maybe calling some to do this? Some churches accept that, some don't - it makes no difference to their salvation.

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.

I'm sure he does.
But I don't accept that Satan would lead someone to preach about Jesus, the cross, spiritual warfare or in fat about anything that would lead someone closer to God and allow them to grow in their faith. He doesn't want people to be saved - why would he call someone to preach the Gospel? He, the devil, was defeated at the cross and will not ultimately win; he is ddomed eternally. Why would he want anyone to know that, and about the love, power and goodness of God?

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.

If that's what's best for your family - you going out to work when it may not make you that happy - and if that's how you interpret headship - you being a leader when it may be against your skill or inclination; that's between you, your family and God.
It's not true that all men are leaders and women are just, and have to be, followers. Or that men have to go out and earn a living while women stay behind with the kids. That might not be what's best for your family; supposing your wife could earn more than you? Supposing that pushing yourself to do something you weren't enjoying - work - and that forcing yourself to be something you aren't -a leader - makes you ill, or stressed to the point where you have a breakdown or can't work? If that were the case, then your wife would have to do everything - work, provide an income, look after the kids AND you. She would then be the leader in your home, by default. How would you feel then?

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...

Women who go forward to be preachers, or train for ordination are saying to those above them (mostly men) AND to the church that they want their call to be tested. It is, and some are affirmed in it, while others may come to realise that God wasn't calling them to this particular role.

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.

But regarding the issue of women's ordination we DON'T all understand.
Some churches allow women to be ministers, even bishops, and seem to be growing. The Gospel is preached by these women; the sick are visited, people are taught, challenged, rebuked and grow in their faith, and some come to truly know God for the first time. They may be adamant, and totally sincere that GOD has called them and they are obeying him.
Others wouldn't allow women to be ministers, or even lay preachers, and they too seem to be growing. The Gospel is preached by men; the sick are visited, people are taught, challenged, rebuked and grow in their faith, and some come to truly know God for the first time. They may be adamant, and totally sincere, about not letting women be ordained; women may not even be allowed to publicly read the Scriptures in these churches.
Yet all who attend either of these churches are saved, born again Christians who love, worship and are following and serving God.

 

[Brokenhill]

Once again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We're going to keep going in circles.

I won't be responding after this, but I will leave you with John 14:15,
“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."

What is the will of God? It is to keep His commandments...which goes beyond the Gospel/salvation.

There are people who genuinely don't understand something, but there are other people who choose to misunderstand scripture through bias of their immediate culture. The culture that we read about in scripture is mostly God's culture, not mans. We have to reason not to apply any passage today in similar ways that they did 2000 years ago.

 

[Strong in Him]

Once again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We're going to keep going in circles.

I won't be responding after this, but I will leave you with John 14:15,
“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."

What is the will of God? It is to keep His commandments...which goes beyond the Gospel/salvation.

There are people who genuinely don't understand something, but there are other people who choose to misunderstand scripture through bias of their immediate culture. The culture that we read about in scripture is mostly God's culture, not mans. We have to reason not to apply any passage today in similar ways that they did 2000 years ago.

Yes we are going in circles.

What I want to know, and no one has satisfactorily answered, is;
- why do Spirit filled, Christian, women of God claim that God has spoken to them about ordination if it is a lie? Are you saying they are more concerned with their own rights and desires than the word of God?
- why do Spirit filled, Christian men of God accept, agree with and affirm women's call to ordination, to the point of teaching, training, laying hands on them and asking God to bless them? Are they weak and unable to lead or have they let themselves be led astray by these militant feminists?
- why does God not do something about women who are telling others how he has called them to this ministry, if he knows perfectly well that he hasn't? Doesn't his Spirit convict people of sin these days? Does he no longer transform people into Jesus' likeness - 2 Corinthians 3:18?
- is it a sin to preach the Gospel? Visit the sick? Baptise? Make disciples? If so, why did Jesus command it?
- will women be commended for doing what Jesus commanded all believers to do, or punished because they are the "wrong" gender?
- why can some people not see, and rejoice in, what God is doing today? The Pharisees were like this - absolutely committed to Scripture and reading it, but so hung up on following the letter of the law that they missed what was in front of them - their Messiah.
- why is it easier to dismiss generations of women as being disobedient/deluded/liars/feminists than to concede that possibly you have misunderstood Scripture?

God does not contradict his word - we agree on that.
Women have been preaching and leading for years - you know that in 1030 something Catherine of Siena was advising the pope and he asked her to teach the cardinals? So this tells me that he is NOT against women doing these things - just as they did in the Bible, with Deborah leading a nation, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam and Philip's daughters prophesying, and other women witnessing to their Lord. He is allowing, and calling, women to do this today. Even as I speak there is a church service taking place locally where a woman is giving her testimony about God's calling and working in her life before she goes off to be ordained in 5 or 6 weeks - this is happening with the knowledge and blessing of male ministers and the male superintendent.

But for those against women's ordination, because God can't contradict his word, it must be all the thousands of women who are wrong and at fault. So why doesn't he stop them?

 

[Brokenhill]

Yes we are going in circles.

What I want to know, and no one has satisfactorily answered, is;
- why do Spirit filled, Christian, women of God claim that God has spoken to them about ordination if it is a lie? Are you saying they are more concerned with their own rights and desires than the word of God?
- why do Spirit filled, Christian men of God accept, agree with and affirm women's call to ordination, to the point of teaching, training, laying hands on them and asking God to bless them? Are they weak and unable to lead or have they let themselves be led astray by these militant feminists?
- why does God not do something about women who are telling others how he has called them to this ministry, if he knows perfectly well that he hasn't? Doesn't his Spirit convict people of sin these days? Does he no longer transform people into Jesus' likeness - 2 Corinthians 3:18?
- is it a sin to preach the Gospel? Visit the sick? Baptise? Make disciples? If so, why did Jesus command it?
- will women be commended for doing what Jesus commanded all believers to do, or punished because they are the "wrong" gender?
- why can some people not see, and rejoice in, what God is doing today? The Pharisees were like this - absolutely committed to Scripture and reading it, but so hung up on following the letter of the law that they missed what was in front of them - their Messiah.
- why is it easier to dismiss generations of women as being disobedient/deluded/liars/feminists than to concede that possibly you have misunderstood Scripture?

God does not contradict his word - we agree on that.
Women have been preaching and leading for years - you know that in 1030 something Catherine of Siena was advising the pope and he asked her to teach the cardinals? So this tells me that he is NOT against women doing these things - just as they did in the Bible, with Deborah leading a nation, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam and Philip's daughters prophesying, and other women witnessing to their Lord. He is allowing, and calling, women to do this today. Even as I speak there is a church service taking place locally where a woman is giving her testimony about God's calling and working in her life before she goes off to be ordained in 5 or 6 weeks - this is happening with the knowledge and blessing of male ministers and the male superintendent.

But for those against women's ordination, because God can't contradict his word, it must be all the thousands of women who are wrong and at fault. So why doesn't he stop them?

All these were answered with scripture.
But I'm responding because I don't remember answering: "why doesn't God do something about it?"

Why doesn't God stop women? Two reasons:
1. Why doesn't God stop anything else that is sinful around the world? Why doesn't he stop homosexuality activists, prostitution rings, or world wars? It's because He allows men to have free will, to have some control NOW ON EARTH, and He will have His final judgement in the end. HE IS BEING PATIENT WITH THOSE WHO ARE SINNING. Sin is sin...whether it's murder or stealing, or not following God's pattern of headship. It's still sin...us humans like to give weight to one sin over the other, but the bible says if you break one part of the Law, you break it all (James 2:10).
2. God allows things like this to occur so to test the true believers, the true church...He wants us to teach against falsity, whether elements of the Gospel or other commandments.


I agree that we should be more worried about the Spirit of the Law rather than the letter...however, we should have the Spirit and attitude to WANT to follow the letter of the Law. God hated sacrifices because Israel lacked care, love, mercy, and were sinning throughout the country. God originally wanted them to uphold "mercy and justice" as well their tithes, sacrifices, etc.

We should never put ritualistic works above Grace or sincerity or love etc. However, we should have the sincerity, integrity, and level of faith to desire to do MORE AND MORE form God's word...no matter how hard it is.
Jesus says in Luke, "sell your possessions and give to the poor". But Paul says in 1 Cor. 13 that giving our possessions to the poor means NOTHING WITHOUT LOVE. So, ideally, we should have the love to be generous to those less fortunate than us, AND THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And time and time again in scripture we see extreme examples of action based on the Spirit of the Law (like in Acts 2 when they all sold their possessions and shared).

The pharisees were wrong because they only had the works. I believe God desires us to have both.

James 2:26
"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

 

[Strong in Him]

All these were answered with scripture.
But I'm responding because I don't remember answering: "why doesn't God do something about it?"

Why doesn't God stop women? Two reasons:
1. Why doesn't God stop anything else that is sinful around the world? Why doesn't he stop homosexuality activists, prostitution rings, or world wars? It's because He allows men to have free will, to have some control NOW ON EARTH, and He will have His final judgement in the end. HE IS BEING PATIENT WITH THOSE WHO ARE SINNING.

So you really believe that leading a church, preaching the word, helping/counselling/teaching/listening to others, baptising, marrying, visiting the sick, burying the dead is sin - on the same level as murder or homosexual activity - IF it is done by a woman?? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

For one thing, we are not talking about non Christians who don't know the Lord, sin in ignorance, may enjoy sin and not know that God can offer forgiveness and eternal life, as well as judgment for those who constantly reject him. We are talking about children of God; women who have been born again, received forgiveness and a new heart and are filled with the Holy Spirit who convicts people of sin and is changing us into Jesus' image and likeness, 2 Corinthians 3:18. John says that no one born of God continues - constantly, deliberately and knowingly - to sin, 1 John 3:6. They cannot. Someone who really knows and loves God, delights in him, is thankful for all his mercies, blessings, gifts and so on, will not, and I believe cannot, say "now, what can I do to hurt God today? How can I deliberately sin? What part of his word can I disobey?"
And even if it WAS occasionally possible for them to do that, don't you think that the Spirit would convict them of it, so they could be forgiven. That's the Spirit's role; to convict of sin and lead people to the Saviour who died for them, so that they can be forgiven and reconciled to God. That is why Jesus came and went through that agony; he WANTS us to be forgiven and reconciled to God - and to tell others how they can have that too.

Yet you are saying, not only that these Christian women who obey Jesus and preach God's word are sinning, but that they continue to do so, either knowingly or in ignorance, and that God just says, "oh well, it doesn't matter if they sin, and lead other Christians astray by that sin; ONE DAY I will punish them." Why not now? Is the Spirit not able to do what Jesus said he would? Is God not able to lead women in paths of righteousness for his name's sake? Psalm 23:4.
Sorry, but the more I think about it, the more annoyed I become. This is about God and his ability to forgive, guide, shape and direct his church and people who bear his name. Apparently he doesn't do that any more. Apparently the devil persuades women to preach about the cross and how Satan was defeated there, God allows it and, even if people hear that word, repent and turn to him for forgiveness, God will still one day punish the people who preached it, because HE created them women and they should not have done so?

 

[Brokenhill]

So you really believe that leading a church, preaching the word, helping/counselling/teaching/listening to others, baptising, marrying, visiting the sick, burying the dead is sin - on the same level as murder or homosexual activity - IF it is done by a woman?? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

For one thing, we are not talking about non Christians who don't know the Lord, sin in ignorance, may enjoy sin and not know that God can offer forgiveness and eternal life, as well as judgment for those who constantly reject him. We are talking about children of God; women who have been born again, received forgiveness and a new heart and are filled with the Holy Spirit who convicts people of sin and is changing us into Jesus' image and likeness, 2 Corinthians 3:18. John says that no one born of God continues - constantly, deliberately and knowingly - to sin, 1 John 3:6. They cannot. Someone who really knows and loves God, delights in him, is thankful for all his mercies, blessings, gifts and so on, will not, and I believe cannot, say "now, what can I do to hurt God today? How can I deliberately sin? What part of his word can I disobey?"
And even if it WAS occasionally possible for them to do that, don't you think that the Spirit would convict them of it, so they could be forgiven. That's the Spirit's role; to convict of sin and lead people to the Saviour who died for them, so that they can be forgiven and reconciled to God. That is why Jesus came and went through that agony; he WANTS us to be forgiven and reconciled to God - and to tell others how they can have that too.

Yet you are saying, not only that these Christian women who obey Jesus and preach God's word are sinning, but that they continue to do so, either knowingly or in ignorance, and that God just says, "oh well, it doesn't matter if they sin, and lead other Christians astray by that sin; ONE DAY I will punish them." Why not now? Is the Spirit not able to do what Jesus said he would? Is God not able to lead women in paths of righteousness for his name's sake? Psalm 23:4.
Sorry, but the more I think about it, the more annoyed I become. This is about God and his ability to forgive, guide, shape and direct his church and people who bear his name. Apparently he doesn't do that any more. Apparently the devil persuades women to preach about the cross and how Satan was defeated there, God allows it and, even if people hear that word, repent and turn to him for forgiveness, God will still one day punish the people who preached it, because HE created them women and they should not have done so?

I said women who are going against male headship in a local congregation of saints are in the wrong. Some of things you listed have nothing to do with leadership positions in a congregation of saved believers. And I said earlier I agree that women can preach the word to non-believers--the issue comes when women are teaching/guiding in an authoritative position to saved men.

I'm saying that sin is sin. Even if there were different levels of sin...sin is stills sin. Why should be ok with "minor" sins? That kind of thinking would be like the world "well I never killed nobody".

God does guide us through His Spirit...as we read His word He guides us to the correct understanding of passages. But our conscience can be seared, we have to be open to God's guidance and studious in His word to know that we are on God's wavelength.

 

[Strong in Him]

And I said earlier I agree that women can preach the word to non-believers--the issue comes when women are teaching/guiding in an authoritative position to saved men.

And I said that that doesn't make sense.
You're saying that if a church was to hold a Gospel service/seeker service, or whatever they call them, and the congregation was made up of 30 non Christians, 10 of them male, a woman could preach the Gospel to them. If they all became Christians, came back the next week and said, "you are clearly anointed by God; teach us more", the woman would have to say, "sorry, you're now saved and Scripture says I can't teach you."
Ok, so it's unlikely that that scenario would happen - though on the mission field with only a female missionary as a teacher; who knows. But if it DID, then you have the absurd situation of a woman being able to tell men that they are sinners, enemies of God, that they are not good enough to get to heaven and that if they continue in their sin they are bound for hell. She would then tell them about Jesus, what he did for them and how they had to respond to be saved. She might even baptise them and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. But after they responded and God saved them, and one of them said, "so how should we read the Bible; do we start at the beginning and keep going?" she would have to say, "let me go and find a male teacher to tell you that because God says I'm not allowed to".

Apart from making Christians, the faith, and maybe God, look rather silly, there is a discrepancy.
Paul also said that women should be silent in church. If you are allowing a woman to preach the Gospel to unsaved men; she is not being silent as Paul, apparently, commands. So why is it ok to ignore part of his teaching and not another part? How do you understand Paul's words, "women should be silent in church"? Are they literal and do they apply to us today? If so, then silent means silent, and a woman cannot preach to unbelievers, (Scripture doesn't say this anyway so I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.) These words are also in conflict with passages where Paul tells women how to pray and prophesy
If they do apply to us today, then it is more likely that his words "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", are also literal and apply to us. (That still doesn't explain the fact that all authority comes from God, and that teaching the Christian faith to a Christian man - when he is happy for her to do so - is not usurping his authority.)

But it is inconsistent to say that some of Paul's words apply to us and not others - a woman CAN speak in church, because she may be preaching to unsaved men. But she can't teach them the Christian faith because Paul said that a woman cannot teach a man - which you've interpreted as cannot teach a saved man.
Apart from all this, God knows people's hearts; we don't. How does a preacher know whether the man who sits in church week after week is, actually, truly saved?

I'm saying that sin is sin. Even if there were different levels of sin...sin is stills sin. Why should be ok with "minor" sins?

Yes, sin is sin. Someone who has ever stolen stationery from an office has sinned just as much as someone who has stolen a person's life.
I am saying that someone who follows where the Lord leads and does what Jesus commanded, preaches and teaches, is not sinning. It doesn't matter if they are women; they are serving God, being guided by him, following his will for them and obeying what Jesus taught. That is not sin.

God does guide us through His Spirit...as we read His word He guides us to the correct understanding of passages.

Exactly. Scripture interprets, and confirms, Scripture.
So if there are verses which seem to conflict with other passages, then we need to look again and question our understanding of those verses. In this case, the verses where Paul requires women to be silent and not teach men, contradict the verses which say that he instructed women on the correct way to prophesy and pray, (which involve speaking), that he had female co workers, that he allowed Priscilla to teach, that Phoebe was a deacon, and so on.

But our conscience can be seared, we have to be open to God's guidance and studious in His word to know that we are on God's wavelength.

God can sear the consciences of any women who say they are called by him to be ordained but aren't; yet he doesn't. And how do you know that when they testify to being led by God, they are lying?
If having women in the pulpit was a sin, if it was against God's command and will, if women who taught about God's love were in fact dishonouring him and bringing shame to the faith and his name - God could, and I believe would - convict, challenge and remove them. Of course he would also need to convict and challenge all the men who had trained them and accepted their call, and there might not be many of the congregation left, (they might go to the church down the road that DID accept that God could call whoever he wanted to serve him). But if that was what would glorify God and be in accordance with his will, then that is what would happen.
But it doesn't.
There are preachers like Joyce Meyers, Billy Graham's daughter Ann, Faith Forster and others - as well as countless women all over the world who preach and teach the Gospel. There are churches where male clergy and Christian men say, "yes, she is anointed by God to preach", or "I like her preaching; she has helped me/taught me/showed me Jesus." There are churches which are growing numerically, and whose congregations might say that they are growing in faith, who are led by a woman. There are women who stand up each week and testify to God's guidance, how he has worked in their lives and spoken to them - and God blesses them for doing so and for their obedience. Yet Scripture doesn't show that God blesses sin; people never grow, or are blessed and edified, by the sin of anybody else.

 

[Brokenhill]

And I said that that doesn't make sense.
You're saying that if a church was to hold a Gospel service/seeker service, or whatever they call them, and the congregation was made up of 30 non Christians, 10 of them male, a woman could preach the Gospel to them. If they all became Christians, came back the next week and said, "you are clearly anointed by God; teach us more", the woman would have to say, "sorry, you're now saved and Scripture says I can't teach you."
Ok, so it's unlikely that that scenario would happen - though on the mission field with only a female missionary as a teacher; who knows. But if it DID, then you have the absurd situation of a woman being able to tell men that they are sinners, enemies of God, that they are not good enough to get to heaven and that if they continue in their sin they are bound for hell. She would then tell them about Jesus, what he did for them and how they had to respond to be saved. She might even baptise them and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. But after they responded and God saved them, and one of them said, "so how should we read the Bible; do we start at the beginning and keep going?" she would have to say, "let me go and find a male teacher to tell you that because God says I'm not allowed to".

Apart from making Christians, the faith, and maybe God, look rather silly, there is a discrepancy.
Paul also said that women should be silent in church. If you are allowing a woman to preach the Gospel to unsaved men; she is not being silent as Paul, apparently, commands. So why is it ok to ignore part of his teaching and not another part? How do you understand Paul's words, "women should be silent in church"? Are they literal and do they apply to us today? If so, then silent means silent, and a woman cannot preach to unbelievers, (Scripture doesn't say this anyway so I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.) These words are also in conflict with passages where Paul tells women how to pray and prophesy
If they do apply to us today, then it is more likely that his words "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", are also literal and apply to us. (That still doesn't explain the fact that all authority comes from God, and that teaching the Christian faith to a Christian man - when he is happy for her to do so - is not usurping his authority.)

But it is inconsistent to say that some of Paul's words apply to us and not others - a woman CAN speak in church, because she may be preaching to unsaved men. But she can't teach them the Christian faith because Paul said that a woman cannot teach a man - which you've interpreted as cannot teach a saved man.
Apart from all this, God knows people's hearts; we don't. How does a preacher know whether the man who sits in church week after week is, actually, truly saved?



Yes, sin is sin. Someone who has ever stolen stationery from an office has sinned just as much as someone who has stolen a person's life.
I am saying that someone who follows where the Lord leads and does what Jesus commanded, preaches and teaches, is not sinning. It doesn't matter if they are women; they are serving God, being guided by him, following his will for them and obeying what Jesus taught. That is not sin.



Exactly. Scripture interprets, and confirms, Scripture.
So if there are verses which seem to conflict with other passages, then we need to look again and question our understanding of those verses. In this case, the verses where Paul requires women to be silent and not teach men, contradict the verses which say that he instructed women on the correct way to prophesy and pray, (which involve speaking), that he had female co workers, that he allowed Priscilla to teach, that Phoebe was a deacon, and so on.



God can sear the consciences of any women who say they are called by him to be ordained but aren't; yet he doesn't. And how do you know that when they testify to being led by God, they are lying?
If having women in the pulpit was a sin, if it was against God's command and will, if women who taught about God's love were in fact dishonouring him and bringing shame to the faith and his name - God could, and I believe would - convict, challenge and remove them. Of course he would also need to convict and challenge all the men who had trained them and accepted their call, and there might not be many of the congregation left, (they might go to the church down the road that DID accept that God could call whoever he wanted to serve him). But if that was what would glorify God and be in accordance with his will, then that is what would happen.
But it doesn't.
There are preachers like Joyce Meyers, Billy Graham's daughter Ann, Faith Forster and others - as well as countless women all over the world who preach and teach the Gospel. There are churches where male clergy and Christian men say, "yes, she is anointed by God to preach", or "I like her preaching; she has helped me/taught me/showed me Jesus." There are churches which are growing numerically, and whose congregations might say that they are growing in faith, who are led by a woman. There are women who stand up each week and testify to God's guidance, how he has worked in their lives and spoken to them - and God blesses them for doing so and for their obedience. Yet Scripture doesn't show that God blesses sin; people never grow, or are blessed and edified, by the sin of anybody else.

I never said women aren't capable of being effective teachers, but that's beside the point. I am a capable home-maker, but God wants me out working, and wants my wife to have her priority as a keeper of the home (i'm not saying she can't work at all). Our roles should not flip, though we may both be capable of either role--the same goes for the roles of men/women in a body of Christians that meet together on a regular basis.
A woman should teach by her example every day of her life, as well as preach, to the lost people she meets along the way (neighbors, coworkers, etc.). However, in the local congregation, Paul does indeed say women must be "silent"--but looking at the context of that passage, as well as the root word in Greek, and other translations--the idea seems to be "quietness" not absolute silence. It's the idea of submission to authority of man/Christ. By "saved" I meant those who have been initiated into the body of Christ (those who have believed in the Gospel, repented, confessed Christ, and been baptized in water & spirit). So you're right, it would put a missionary woman in an odd position of starting a congregation in a place of non-believers, but then not able to adequately structure it--one of multiple reasons why men doing missionary work makes the most sense (though I think it is strongly advantageous for women to be supporters of such a work to men).

God doesn't sear the conscious--we do, and at some point He allows it to accelerate.
God uses His disciples to challenge and convict Christians in error. I am challenging your error right now.

I would agree that God doesn't bless sin, but Satan can, can't he?

I am applying Paul's teachings literally, without omitting anything in part. I'm creating balance between 2 or more teachings that seem to contradict.
How do you balance Paul's teachings? How would you reconcile his teaching of male headship and women being "silent" in the churches? I know you don't believe that applies to modern day, but if it did, how would you apply it?

 

[Strong in Him]

I never said women aren't capable of being effective teachers, but that's beside the point.

I know, and I don't think I ever said that you did.

I am a capable home-maker, but God wants me out working, and wants my wife to have her priority as a keeper of the home (i'm not saying she can't work at all). Our roles should not flip, though we may both be capable of either role--the same goes for the roles of men/women in a body of Christians that meet together on a regular basis.

If that's how you understand what God wants for you and it's best for your marriage; you have to do that. Scripture doesn't say that headship = men going out to work and women staying at home with the kids, (they might not have any anyway), but if that is what the Lord has said to you and your wife; fine.

A woman should teach by her example every day of her life, as well as preach, to the lost people she meets along the way (neighbors, coworkers, etc.).

Which of course men should also do.

However, in the local congregation, Paul does indeed say women must be "silent"--but looking at the context of that passage, as well as the root word in Greek, and other translations--the idea seems to be "quietness" not absolute silence.

But Paul not only allowed women to pray and prophesy, he made sure they knew how to.
If a woman is prophesying to other believers - who ARE the church even if they are meeting in a school or a tent - then she needs to be heard, or there's no point. Ditto with prayer. If a woman kneels to pray she can pray quietly; if she is standing to lead prayer, or share her prayers with others, she needs to be heard.

It's the idea of submission to authority of man/Christ.

If a woman has a prophecy, word or calling from the Lord, then she is not submitting to authority by keeping silent, or refusing to follow that call. A believer - male or female - is under GOD'S authority. HE has created us, saved us, filled us with his Spirit, given us every spiritual blessing in Christ, and a gift/gifts so that we are equipped to serve him; however he calls and whatever way he chooses. It is all from him. We are nothing without God, but through Jesus, (who was sent by God) we become his children, called by him, bearing his name, worshipping as his church and working to build his kingdom. None of us have any authority of our own; after his resurrection Jesus said to his disciples ALL authority has been given to me. Authority is God's to give - not ours to take or assume.

By "saved" I meant those who have been initiated into the body of Christ (those who have believed in the Gospel, repented, confessed Christ, and been baptized in water & spirit).

But saved men still need to learn, and Scripture doesn't say that a woman cannot teach them, but only sinners.

If you heard a man publicly giving a talk and you KNEW for a fact that his theology was wrong, or he was actually teaching heresy, you'd probably challenge him wouldn't you? Otherwise other people in the group/congregation would receive false teaching. Are you saying that if a woman was in that position she should keep quiet for fear of damaging his "authority", and just let people receive a lot of wrong teaching?

So you're right, it would put a missionary woman in an odd position of starting a congregation in a place of non-believers, but then not able to adequately structure it--one of multiple reasons why men doing missionary work makes the most sense

Yet Gladys Aylward did it - started a church, I mean - and probably many others have done it too. So what of those believers - are they saved? Were they saved through the ministry of a "sinner"? Were the men God was speaking to about going to the mission field all so disobedient that God had to make do with second best? This seems unlikely - if God can create worshippers from stones, I'm sure he can raise up missionaries from men.

God doesn't sear the conscious--we do, and at some point He allows it to accelerate.

Really?
Even though Jesus said that the Spirit would convict of sin and lead people into all truth? How do you read those verses and come to the conclusion that we have to sear our own consciences?

God uses His disciples to challenge and convict Christians in error. I am challenging your error right now.

As I am yours.

I would agree that God doesn't bless sin, but Satan can, can't he?

Not when it comes to the Gospel he can't.
Like I said before, how and why would Satan lead someone to preach about the cross? Why would he let people teach that Satan and his demons were all defeated at Calvary and will one day be permanently and forever defeated? Why would the devil want people to know how much God hates their sin, that if they continue in that sin they will go to hell, but that they can be forgiven that sin and come to know God? A soul that is saved is a soul that is lost to the devil; why would the devil want that? He is God's enemy and would not do God's work for him.

And like I also said, be careful that you do not take something which is from God - a woman's call and ministry - and ascribe it to the devil.

I am applying Paul's teachings literally, without omitting anything in part. I'm creating balance between 2 or more teachings that seem to contradict.

Well you're not actually. The teaching that women can go ahead and teach non Christian men but must not try to teach a Christian one, is not Scripture. It's either your interpretation, or you've added it.
And like I said, if Paul wanted women to be silent - or quiet - why did he allow them to prophesy? Silent means silent, and quiet means quiet. If that's what he meant, he was contradicting himself when he instructed women how to pray.

How do you balance Paul's teachings? How would you reconcile his teaching of male headship and women being "silent" in the churches?

Totally different situations.
Headship= headship in marriage; wives submit to your husbands. Nowhere does Scripture say, congregations submit to your Minister.
The Minister does not represent a husband nor the congregation a wife - totally different relationship. Being a Minister is very much a calling but the bottom line is that it is also a job. Ministers can be sacked, resign or retire; husbands shouldn't.

 

[PsychoeDial]

It's kind of amazing how those that try to make women equal to men always seem to try and point out: "you know, the words offered by Paul were certainly influenced by the politics and such of the 'time'."

The politics of the time were part of what made Jesus a target of the temple authorities. Those who operated because they submitted to Rome's authority and even paid tax to Rome in order to operate as the temple of God.
Further, you're not being fully forthcoming about that scripture regarding the man being head of the woman.

1 Corinthians 11:3
The reason politics and cultural tradition is important in understanding the context of scripture and references like that in 1 Corinthians is because it is into that culture the new covenant is introduced. The division in that there were the Jews that didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. And there were those Jews that did believe.
For those that did not believe it was life as usual after Christ. For those that did believe it was a whole new teaching that rose above what was traditional in the male female relationship especially.

The 1 Corinthians verse isn't saying women are inferior to men. It can't if someone believes the Bible says what it says as God's words and that's it. Because to argue women are inferior to men due to something like what is written in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is to then make God a liar when we later read Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

In actuality, and this is again why history and politics of the time are relevant to comprehending the import of scripture, Federal Headship was what was being referenced in the 1 Corinthians verse.
Federal Headship isn't a term in scripture. Rather, it is custom of imputation. The familial line descends through the male. That's why in the garden of Eden when Eve was the first to be tempted to fall from grace and eat of the apple, sin didn't enter into the world through her act of defiance against God's ordinance not to eat of it. Rather, sin entered the world because Adam too ate of the fruit. Adam was created first and from him did Eve arrive being made from part of him. Therefore descent of familial heritage was from the male.
That's the imputed "original sin" meaning as well. Sin originated from Adam's line.

Paul speaks of this , what is termed federal headship, in Hebrews. " And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." Hebrews 7:8-10.

That's why 1 Corinthians 11:3 says the man is the head of the woman. It isn't that he is superior to her being he's male. It is that familial heritage originates with the male.

When we are all one in Christ no one can be inferior to the other in Christ.

 

[ripple the car]

Yes, it is possible that women are inferior to men. Not less saved but not given life in Christ for the same purpose that men are, and innately in some created way less qualified to lead.

Every time I suggest anything to my husband and he goes along with it, the result is pretty awful. Every time I step back and pray for him and let him figure things out on his own, our lives go much better. It takes longer, but the results are far better. And in the end, he makes wiser choices than I would have.

 

[nothead]

You are a wise woman. Roles consider station. Station in life considers what our attitude should be and how this plays out.

A wise woman is better than an unfaithful man before God. But a humble woman once said the dogs eat the crumbs and find life.

This dog grafted in gets the crumbs. And IT is happy as a lark.

 

[nothead]

The politics of the time were part of what made Jesus a target of the temple authorities. Those who operated because they submitted to Rome's authority and even paid tax to Rome in order to operate as the temple of God.
Further, you're not being fully forthcoming about that scripture regarding the man being head of the woman.

1 Corinthians 11:3
The reason politics and cultural tradition is important in understanding the context of scripture and references like that in 1 Corinthians is because it is into that culture the new covenant is introduced. The division in that there were the Jews that didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. And there were those Jews that did believe.
For those that did not believe it was life as usual after Christ. For those that did believe it was a whole new teaching that rose above what was traditional in the male female relationship especially.

The 1 Corinthians verse isn't saying women are inferior to men. It can't if someone believes the Bible says what it says as God's words and that's it. Because to argue women are inferior to men due to something like what is written in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is to then make God a liar when we later read Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

In actuality, and this is again why history and politics of the time are relevant to comprehending the import of scripture, Federal Headship was what was being referenced in the 1 Corinthians verse.
Federal Headship isn't a term in scripture. Rather, it is custom of imputation. The familial line descends through the male. That's why in the garden of Eden when Eve was the first to be tempted to fall from grace and eat of the apple, sin didn't enter into the world through her act of defiance against God's ordinance not to eat of it. Rather, sin entered the world because Adam too ate of the fruit. Adam was created first and from him did Eve arrive being made from part of him. Therefore descent of familial heritage was from the male.
That's the imputed "original sin" meaning as well. Sin originated from Adam's line.

Paul speaks of this , what is termed federal headship, in Hebrews. " And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." Hebrews 7:8-10.

That's why 1 Corinthians 11:3 says the man is the head of the woman. It isn't that he is superior to her being he's male. It is that familial heritage originates with the male.

When we are all one in Christ no one can be inferior to the other in Christ.

God also blesses whom He will bless and hardens whom He will harden. Democracy presupposes equality of gender race and mental ability. Bible presupposes the Sovereign Will of YHWH.

 

[nothead]

I know, and I don't think I ever said that you did.



If that's how you understand what God wants for you and it's best for your marriage; you have to do that. Scripture doesn't say that headship = men going out to work and women staying at home with the kids, (they might not have any anyway), but if that is what the Lord has said to you and your wife; fine.



Which of course men should also do.



But Paul not only allowed women to pray and prophesy, he made sure they knew how to.
If a woman is prophesying to other believers - who ARE the church even if they are meeting in a school or a tent - then she needs to be heard, or there's no point. Ditto with prayer. If a woman kneels to pray she can pray quietly; if she is standing to lead prayer, or share her prayers with others, she needs to be heard.



If a woman has a prophecy, word or calling from the Lord, then she is not submitting to authority by keeping silent, or refusing to follow that call. A believer - male or female - is under GOD'S authority. HE has created us, saved us, filled us with his Spirit, given us every spiritual blessing in Christ, and a gift/gifts so that we are equipped to serve him; however he calls and whatever way he chooses. It is all from him. We are nothing without God, but through Jesus, (who was sent by God) we become his children, called by him, bearing his name, worshipping as his church and working to build his kingdom. None of us have any authority of our own; after his resurrection Jesus said to his disciples ALL authority has been given to me. Authority is God's to give - not ours to take or assume.



But saved men still need to learn, and Scripture doesn't say that a woman cannot teach them, but only sinners.

If you heard a man publicly giving a talk and you KNEW for a fact that his theology was wrong, or he was actually teaching heresy, you'd probably challenge him wouldn't you? Otherwise other people in the group/congregation would receive false teaching. Are you saying that if a woman was in that position she should keep quiet for fear of damaging his "authority", and just let people receive a lot of wrong teaching?



Yet Gladys Aylward did it - started a church, I mean - and probably many others have done it too. So what of those believers - are they saved? Were they saved through the ministry of a "sinner"? Were the men God was speaking to about going to the mission field all so disobedient that God had to make do with second best? This seems unlikely - if God can create worshippers from stones, I'm sure he can raise up missionaries from men.



Really?
Even though Jesus said that the Spirit would convict of sin and lead people into all truth? How do you read those verses and come to the conclusion that we have to sear our own consciences?



As I am yours.



Not when it comes to the Gospel he can't.
Like I said before, how and why would Satan lead someone to preach about the cross? Why would he let people teach that Satan and his demons were all defeated at Calvary and will one day be permanently and forever defeated? Why would the devil want people to know how much God hates their sin, that if they continue in that sin they will go to hell, but that they can be forgiven that sin and come to know God? A soul that is saved is a soul that is lost to the devil; why would the devil want that? He is God's enemy and would not do God's work for him.

And like I also said, be careful that you do not take something which is from God - a woman's call and ministry - and ascribe it to the devil.



Well you're not actually. The teaching that women can go ahead and teach non Christian men but must not try to teach a Christian one, is not Scripture. It's either your interpretation, or you've added it.
And like I said, if Paul wanted women to be silent - or quiet - why did he allow them to prophesy? Silent means silent, and quiet means quiet. If that's what he meant, he was contradicting himself when he instructed women how to pray.



Totally different situations.
Headship= headship in marriage; wives submit to your husbands. Nowhere does Scripture say, congregations submit to your Minister.
The Minister does not represent a husband nor the congregation a wife - totally different relationship. Being a Minister is very much a calling but the bottom line is that it is also a job. Ministers can be sacked, resign or retire; husbands shouldn't.

Or...the silence Paul asked for was not an absolute silence but a considerate one. Of course IMPELLED by Spirit a woman should not keep silent. But then again, small pokes and prods might compel her to wait and listen some more.

 

[Phantasman]

Men are only superior to women in the physical. The wisdom of the feminine is suppressed in a patriarchy. In spirit, women and men are no different in superiority.

 

[nothead]

Men are only superior to women in the physical. The wisdom of the feminine is suppressed in a patriarchy. In spirit, women and men are no different in superiority.

Hey that's TRUE. Men are physically SUPERIOR.

Go to any OLD FOLKS HOME and find the TRUTH. Men outnumber the women about TEN TO ONE.

Gomers go hither to the end of time. Gomers are men. Gomahs are women.

 

[Strong in Him]

Or...the silence Paul asked for was not an absolute silence but a considerate one.

It depends on whether you take the Bible literally and insist that every word is for us today; to be obeyed literally because it is the Bible.
Some people do.

Of course IMPELLED by Spirit a woman should not keep silent. But then again, small pokes and prods might compel her to wait and listen some more.

Those of us who believe we are called by God to preach ARE impelled by the Spirit - and inspired by him too. There are only 2 choices - obey him and preach the word of God, or don't. Those who don't have often testified how God kept speaking to, and nudging, them until they did - THEN they found peace.

 

[Strong in Him]

Every time I suggest anything to my husband and he goes along with it, the result is pretty awful. Every time I step back and pray for him and let him figure things out on his own, our lives go much better. It takes longer, but the results are far better. And in the end, he makes wiser choices than I would have.

But that's an example of headship in marriage, which I have already agreed that Scripture teaches, and does not show that God can't call women to lead a church.