Are women inferior to men?

[Strong in Him]

I do apply all those qualifications to all deacons/elders. If they break any one of the qualifications, they are not fit for their job.

Good.
I still think you're wrong in your interpretation and application of Scripture, but I admire your consistency. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you.

If I go to a restaurant and a waitress comes up to me and asks "what would you like to eat?", and I say "1 double cheese-burger with mushrooms and swiss cheese", the waitress (if she's doing her job) will bring me exactly what I ordered without asking "so not american cheese? and not a triple burger right? and you didn't want 17 burgers right?". My point is that she doesn't need to know what I DONT want, she just needs to know what I WANT. Likewise, imagine us asking God: "what do you want in a deacon/elder?" -- His answer inherently excludes anything He didn't ask for. HE ASKED FOR A HUSBAND, NOT A WIFE--therefore all deacons and elders must ONLY BE MEN. There is no discussion on this,

Well in that case there are only 2 alternatives:
1) God is going back on his word or has changed his mind when he calls women to be ordained, and deacons today.
2) All Christian female Ministers/elders, over many years and in different countries, who testify that God has called them to their role are mistaken/lying/deluded.

I'm guessing that you would say that number 2 is true. This further means that when they get in the pulpit and say "God called me to do this", God is thinking "no I didn't" but yet does nothing to stop them.

God asked for a man with children, who is hospitable, etc. etc...if a man does not fit EVERY SINGLE requirement, he cannot serve as that office!

Well that's what you believe and how you interpret that Scripture; thousands don't.
It's one thing to believe that women can't be ordained; it's quite another to say that unmarried men, married men without children or married men with children who can't control them can't be ordained either.

The point was that just because it's not commanded directly, doesn't mean it's not necessary.

The point is that if it was God's will, plan and purpose; he would command that it should happen.

We can reason with scripture that is given to us and make inferential conclusions.

Oh, so sometimes you take Scripture exactly as written and apply it today, but sometimes you read it, work out what it is inferring and do that?

That doesn't excuse deacons/elders from having wives/families.

Whether someone has a wife and family is a personal choice. The Lord will lead us and guide us to know his will; he doesn't command one way or the other. If he had commanded all Christians to marry and have children then no Christian would be single, no woman would be infertile or otherwise prevented from experiencing childbirth.

Also, Paul states in 1 Cor. 9:5 that they may take along a wife during their ministries, and therefor they can also receive of the monetary blessings provided by the church to the preacher.

Either a wife is to stay at home, work from home or part time if she wishes but look after the children, or she may accompany her husband in his ministry as bishop/elder/missionary/evangelist etc.
Which is it?

The problem is when women put their work ahead of their family. For example, daycare should not be raising the children--the mother should be the primary raiser along with the father when he's available.

If a Christian couple both have God given jobs, they either want, or need, to continue with those jobs when children come along and decide, before God, that they both need to work so that nursery, or day care, is the only answer; that's what they have decided to do and what they should do. No one has the right to interfere in another person's family life and to say "you shouldn't be doing that". Besides, you just said that a wife may accompany her husband in his ministry; who do you think is going to look after the children if that happens?

One's immediate society should never influence how apply scripture. God's commands/examples go above and beyond whatever society's norms are.

That is the whole question right there; how do we read, and apply, Scripture?
You seem to be saying that everything that is written in Scripture is a command from God, and applicable to us. It isn't.
Scripture contains law, prophecy, history, poetry, parables, proverbs, revelation from God about himself, and Jesus' return - and also pastoral epistles; letters from Paul giving advice and answering certain problems. Not all churches had the same problems or were in the same culture, so he does not give the same advice to all of them. He didn't tell the church in Rome that their women should be silent and not teach; he commended a number of women, co-workers and apostles, for their work. He even gave that letter to a woman, Phoebe, to deliver to the church as he could not get to Rome himself at that time. I would guess that when Paul's letters were circulated among the churches, they would know which words were personal to the previous church and which were Gospel and Christian doctrine to be applied to all. Just like if someone were to write on this forum, "God's command is that you obey the president". My country doesn't have a president, and God knows that, so those words, while appearing to be God's command and will for everyone, actually would not be for me. The words would have to be "God commands that you obey the Queen, or the Prime Minister".
There are also words in Scripture that were personal words to one person, not intended to be followed by everyone. An example of this is Paul telling Timothy to stop drinking water but to drink wine, because of his frequent illnesses. No one, except Timothy, would follow that, and it is certainly not a command from God that we should all drink wine. Paul also tells someone to bring his cloak and scrolls to him; who, except the person involved, would do that? Certainly not us today.

Paul gives the same Gospel to all the churches, though.

To be continued (maybe).

 

[ClementofA]

I can't believe this is the hotest topic on the front page.

People are more interested in this sexual discrimination than if people burn in hell forever.

 

[Strong in Him]

I can't believe this is the hotest topic on the front page.

People are more interested in this sexual discrimination than if people burn in hell forever.

I agree that it's not terribly important; it's not a matter pertaining to salvation, but it's not as simple as sex discrimination.
On the issue of women being able to be preachers/ministers, some say it is absolutely forbidden by Scripture and any woman who seeks to do these things is being disobedient and fulfilling their own desires; some say that they know that God has called them to do this/be in this role, and they do not believe he has forbidden it in Scripture.

God does not go against his word. So the question is; HAS he forbidden in it Scripture, and thousands of women are lying or deluded and have somehow involved men in their delusion and disobedience? Or are people who interpret a few verses as meaning that God has commanded women not to be preachers/teachers, wrong? If so, why are, some of them, abusing women and trying to prevent them from following God's will?
NB I am not saying that the OP or anyone here falls into that category, but there have been plenty who do behave in this way.

It's about how we interpret and apply God's word - and that IS important.

 

[JackRT]

When we read the epistles, not just Paul but all of them, we are actually reading someone else's mail. The writers were addressing certain problems in a certain culture at a certain time and place in history. The advice given is the advice of a man to other men. It is not the advice of God. It may have been very good advice at the time but it is not necessarily applicable today. It took me decades and a good deal of mental anguish to come to that realization. Any organization, religious or secular and including marriage, that fails to include women in leadership roles right up to the very top is guilty of several evils. First, it is the insult to the women themselves by viewing them as less worthy. Second, it is the insult to God by denigrating half of God’s creation. If we continue to treat women in this way, then the human race is condemned to stand on one foot, see with one eye, hear with one ear and think with one half the human mind ---- and it shows.

 

[Anto9us]

Men-- Women..

Same-Same.

 

[JackRT]

Men-- Women..

Same-Same.

Intellectually - Spiritually.

 

[Johnnz]

Oh my John,

Not a single epistle of Paul was addressed to 'women'. And how do you come to the conclusion that 'brother' in any way includes 'women'??????? No wonder you are able to find 'contradiction' in Paul's words. I'll bet you find contradiction in your own and then simply choose to ignore it.

John, news alert: "I didn't write the Bible!!!" Nor do I try to 'alter it' to suit my own lusts. I simply read it and accept it....................'as offered'.

You may choose to call women 'your brothers', I find that utterly ludicrous.

You can 'say' whatever you choose, but I have never called a 'woman' my 'brother'. I have never heard 'anyone' call a woman their 'brother'. And note that 'you know this' and then try to offer the most inane excuses I've ever heard.

But watch this: if you simply accepted what 'brother truly means', the contradiction you have 'created' goes away. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
MEC

Seems you don't read your NT very closely. Look at all the uses of 'brother' in 1 Cor for starters. It is patently referring to the entire church. The letter would be read to the entire assembled group - men,. women children. None there would ever have understood Paul to mean 'men only. Your ideology is blinding your reading of the text rather badly I'm afraid.

The latest NIV translates as 'brothers and sisters' for that reason - Paul was addressing and including the entire church. After all, there was a very common word for 'man' in Greek. Paul would have used that if he had meant 'men only'.

Your objection is unfounded.

John
NZ

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Strong in Him]

They're a little punished, but are not inferior, inferior being inevitably worse at things. Paul's statements are still true and right. However, god did not say certain things. God did not say woman need to be subjective toward abuse, abuse is not condoned with this. Women not speaking in church is a true thing, but I doubt that it is a sin, because he might not really care too much, especially if she speaks fair. Sin being it is totally against his will to where he will hold it against you.

Sin is rebelling against God and falling short of his glory, Romans 3:23.
Preaching the Gospel and giving testimony is bearing witness to his glory, love, grace, forgiveness and faithfulness. That is not a sin. The woman at the well, the woman with the issue of blood, the woman who gatecrashed the Pharisee's dinner party, Mary Magdalene and others, all did this. Not to mention the female prophets allowed by Paul.

Refraining from preaching the Gospel, which was commanded by Jesus, while criticising others who do this and thus obey him, might be a sin.

It reminds me of a story I heard about an evangelist who was criticised by someone for preaching in a certain way/giving an altar call, or whatever.
"Tell me" said the evangelist, "how do you preach the Gospel then?"
"I don't", answered the critic.
"well then", said the evangelist, "I prefer the way I do preach to the way that you don't."

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

In case it hasn't been pointed out, or it's been pointed out and I missed it, I want to mention this:

I don't have an issue with submitting to my husband. That's OK with me, and I don't mind doing it. He makes it easy most of the time. Unfortunately, my father made it much more difficult. He took "wives submit" to mean he is the only one who has any say, it doesn't matter what she wants, and my mother had no choice but to obey him. Growing up in that environment, I formed the conclusion that God favors men and despises women. He must have hated me, I thought, when He decided to make me female, and then ordained it that I was compelled to live under the absolute control of a man for my entire life.

My father, obviously, misrepresented the concept. So did my first husband, from whom I am scripturally divorced since he abandoned me to marry another woman. He was abusive toward me, including physically, and remains addicted to alcohol and other drugs even now. I had been raised to believe "wives submit" means my opinion doesn't matter, so when that continued in my first marriage, I didn't see anything unusual about it. I know better now. Eventually it was explained to me that "submit" does not mean, "sit still and let him abuse you." Nor does it mean, "he gets his way at all times, in all matters." These are perversions of the concept, not what God commanded.

As said, my husband usually makes it easy. He has the final say, but he considers my opinion first before he makes that decision. What he decides is motivated by his love for me, and not by the fact that he's enjoying having power over me. I will do anything he asks, as long as I am able to do it--because he asks, instead of demanding.

Now, all of this said, I also notice that the commandment is for wives to submit to their own individual husbands. It is not for all women to take a back seat to all men.

 

[Brokenhill]

Or He's explaining that back in the Garden, God created perfect partners. Nice.
But being that there are flaming swords keeping us out, we are not there.

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God.

Shouldn't our goal be to have a closer relationship with God and eachother as God originally intended in the beginning? I realize perfection is not ever achievable, but shouldn't we try? Growth is talked about throughout the NT.

True, we are to submit to our local governments, but not if they require/allow us to do things that break God's laws. God's laws are never to be broken.

Acts 5:
40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

They broke the law of man to follow God.

vs. 29 "But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men."

Just because America allows abortions (for example), doesn't mean it's not murder. We should likewise not let America's changing on genders/gender roles/acceptable partnerships rule out the words of God.

Do not make rules unto women, lest you wish women to make rules unto you.
All gender based rules are nullified.

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.

The narrow gate is how you treat people equally. Verse 12.....verse 13.
In the early manuscripts, there are no numbers.

That's a misapplication of that scripture. I'm not making rules for women. God is making rules for women AND men.
I'm supposed to treat people how I would want to be treated--but God's ideals for us supersedes that.

Loving our neighbor as yourself does not mean there is this infinitely wide opening of tolerance. There is nothing inherently wrong, or unloving about gender roles. American revolutionary women in the 60s/70s, led by Satan, inserted that kind of stigma into our culture.

The problem is that Satan also gets to husbands in the church about how their wife is supposed to be submissive to them, and they abuse their power and irresponsibly and unlovingly coerce them into things for selfish gain.
That is wrong.

But gender roles/marital roles, AS GOD HAS DEFINED THEM, are perfectly good and reasonable.

 

[Brokenhill]

Well in that case there are only 2 alternatives:
1) God is going back on his word or has changed his mind when he calls women to be ordained, and deacons today.
2) All Christian female Ministers/elders, over many years and in different countries, who testify that God has called them to their role are mistaken/lying/deluded.
I'm guessing that you would say that number 2 is true. This further means that when they get in the pulpit and say "God called me to do this", God is thinking "no I didn't" but yet does nothing to stop them.

1. No He's not. Satan has the ability to mislead. I know that's hard to swallow, but it's true. Just because people think they are ordained by God to do something, doesn't make it reality.
2. Unfortunately, yes. Your assumption on me is correct.
God would never contradict His word, so we can know when men or women are being mislead, if we see their actions contradicting the pattern God set forth.

Like we discussed before, a lot of things happen that God doesn't want to happen (all kinds of evil...whether its murder or thievery)...but yet He isn't doing anything about them...YET. Judgement day is when all evil will come to light and Jesus will make his "enemies the footstool for his feet".
God warned us that people would stray from truth, and that it is OUR responsibility to correct those who err.

2 Tim. 4:3-5 "For 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, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."
Timothy was charged in that letter to not only establish proper teachings, but also correct/rebuke those who did not follow in line with God. That was how he was to "fulfill" his ministry.
We can do that same thing today.

Well that's what you believe and how you interpret that Scripture; thousands don't.
It's one thing to believe that women can't be ordained; it's quite another to say that unmarried men, married men without children or married men with children who can't control them can't be ordained either.

Why is it different? It all lies on the same foundation principal...being careful to only do what God asks...nothing more, nothing less.
When we start making up our own rules with out how to do things, we're basically saying that God is imperfect/that He doesn't know what He's talking about/His rules don't produce the best results.
That mindset is dangerous, and is of evil.

Now, I will admit that there are some gray areas in scripture...sometimes we have to reason within ourselves and make decisions differently than others based on our conscience...but other times, scripture is quite plain with what it teaches.

The point is that if it was God's will, plan and purpose; he would command that it should happen.

What did you read that would lead you to believe this? Why does He have to stop it right now? He said he's going to stop it on judgement day.

Oh, so sometimes you take Scripture exactly as written and apply it today, but sometimes you read it, work out what it is inferring and do that?

Sometimes scripture is very plainly stating things. Other times, it's ambiguous or semi-ambiguous. For the latter, we have no other choice but to reason and infer.
The problem is taking one or two verses out of context and inferring things about them that totally contradicts other areas of God's word.

None of us are perfect with applying scripture, but it's about growing.
The problem is that the majority of the so-called Christian world likes to take easy- street and think that following Christ is just going to church once a week and being nice to people.

Whether someone has a wife and family is a personal choice. The Lord will lead us and guide us to know his will; he doesn't command one way or the other. If he had commanded all Christians to marry and have children then no Christian would be single, no woman would be infertile or otherwise prevented from experiencing childbirth.

You're right, we don't all have to be married. And some women can't have children.
But if someone does not qualify for a certain aspect of God's work, then they DO SOMETHING ELSE. If a man can't be an elder, even though he wants to be, that's ok...he can work in God's kingdom a different BUT EQUALLY IMPORTANT WAY.

Either a wife is to stay at home, work from home or part time if she wishes but look after the children, or she may accompany her husband in his ministry as bishop/elder/missionary/evangelist etc.
Which is it?

All of the above?
Specific applications of wife-hood will vary, but the principal should always stand that wives are to put God first then their husband then their children.
A wife can be a keeper of the home + raise children even if she's tagging along with her husband preaching around the world.
On the contrary (using the previous example), if a woman decided to not travel with her husband and make her husband take the kids on his preaching journey so that she could stay at home and focus on building her career--that would be a problem.

God will always make a way to do what is right.

If a Christian couple both have God given jobs, they either want, or need, to continue with those jobs when children come along and decide, before God, that they both need to work so that nursery, or day care, is the only answer; that's what they have decided to do and what they should do. No one has the right to interfere in another person's family life and to say "you shouldn't be doing that". Besides, you just said that a wife may accompany her husband in his ministry; who do you think is going to look after the children if that happens?

We're supposed to help one another see God's will more clearly. Even if I couldn't tell a family what they should/shouldn't do--GOD CAN!
And God does.
God doesn't care about our specific careers. God cares about who we are as people, and how we treat others and that we are fitting into the mold He has created.

1 Tim. 6:8 "8 If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content."
Wow. That's truly a powerful verse when we dwell on what it implies.
If all we can afford in life is to feed ourselves, our family, and provide them clothes--WE SHOULD BE CONTENT.
Therefor, a husband and wife should never both need to work to be ok. We don't NEED cars, we don't need televisions, we don't need a 3 bedroom house with a garage and backyard, we don't need steak dinners every week, we don't need [fill in the blank here].

God wants us to grow more and more OUTSIDE of this world, even though we live in it.
AND THAT'S HARD. Especially as Americans, since we're in such a consumerist society...all about comfort and entertiament and ease of everything. We complain about the stupidest things (myself included) sometimes.
But with the Holy Spirit, we can rise above.

That was a little bit of a tangent, but the children can come on the on mission trip too.

That is the whole question right there; how do we read, and apply, Scripture?
You seem to be saying that everything that is written in Scripture is a command from God, and applicable to us. It isn't.
Scripture contains law, prophecy, history, poetry, parables, proverbs, revelation from God about himself, and Jesus' return - and also pastoral epistles; letters from Paul giving advice and answering certain problems. Not all churches had the same problems or were in the same culture, so he does not give the same advice to all of them. He didn't tell the church in Rome that their women should be silent and not teach; he commended a number of women, co-workers and apostles, for their work. He even gave that letter to a woman, Phoebe, to deliver to the church as he could not get to Rome himself at that time. I would guess that when Paul's letters were circulated among the churches, they would know which words were personal to the previous church and which were Gospel and Christian doctrine to be applied to all. Just like if someone were to write on this forum, "God's command is that you obey the president". My country doesn't have a president, and God knows that, so those words, while appearing to be God's command and will for everyone, actually would not be for me. The words would have to be "God commands that you obey the Queen, or the Prime Minister".
There are also words in Scripture that were personal words to one person, not intended to be followed by everyone. An example of this is Paul telling Timothy to stop drinking water but to drink wine, because of his frequent illnesses. No one, except Timothy, would follow that, and it is certainly not a command from God that we should all drink wine. Paul also tells someone to bring his cloak and scrolls to him; who, except the person involved, would do that? Certainly not us today.

Paul gives the same Gospel to all the churches, though.

To be continued (maybe).

I don't mean to suggest that everything in scripture is a command. I realize their is differences between commands, examples, and suggestions.
But I think that more of the bible that what you think, based on reasonable inferring, is binding to us today.

The apostles wouldn't teach anything different between one congregation and another. Certain advice may have been given because a particular congregation had a need in that area, but that doesn't mean that ONLY that congregation had to follow that advice. It just suggests that all the other congregations must have been doing pretty good in those areas.
In 1 Cor. 5 Paul is outraged that a man has his step-mother's wife. He condemns it strongly. He didn't teach that to Rome, but that's because he didn't find anyone in Rome with that problem. That doesn't mean that the Roman Christians could have sexual relationship with their step-parents.

The apostles letters circulated through the congregations. We should count it as a blessing that we have many of those writings...that we can look at ALL the positives and ALL the negatives said about one congregation or another, and learn from them ALL.

Just because Jesus isn't walking around today doesn't mean we don't have to follow Him.
___

Maybe I can explain this in another way.
I also agree that modern day application won't always be the same as 1st century application. Let's take modesty for example. If you actually look at what modesty mostly means in the NT, it's talking about simplicity. Not as much about sexuality. So like if you look at early Christian writings, you'll notice that they would avoid purple robes and jewelry, orante hair, etc..
So, to my point. I don't think we all need to walk around in un-dyed robes and sandals to follow the NT pattern of modesty in 1 Peter 3.
However, what we can do is simplify our attire IN RELATION TO our immediate social context. So if the norm today for an American women is to have pounds of makeup products, an outfit for every day for 4 weeks straight, all kinds of accessories, 5+ pairs of shoes...and some of the attire being flashy or boldly sensual...
Well, then maybe a Christian modest women would have less clothes/shoes; little-to-no accessories; wear little-to-no makeup; and wear things that are a little simpler (not "hey look at me clothes").
I'm not trying to get all into modesty, and just know that it definitely applies to men too, but I'm just using this express the idea that we can still apply ALL of the principals and examples in the bible, even if we live in a much different society.

Take care,
Steven

 

[Strong in Him]

1. No He's not. Satan has the ability to mislead. I know that's hard to swallow, but it's true.

I know he does.
But I can't believe that the Lord would allow a Christian who sincerely prays for guidance to be deceived and mislead in that way. It doesn't make sense. Paul tells us to put on the armour of God to equip us for spiritual warfare and protect us from the arrows of the evil one. Jesus tells us to pray to be delivered from evil and to ask not to be led into temptation. He defeated the devil on the cross but knew he was real and would try to tempt us. Not only this, but Jesus is the Good Shepherd who knows his sheep and leads them to green pastures and God also promised to lead us in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
God has promised to be with his children, guide, lead us and equip us for service. The promises, and power, of God count for something! I am human and may sometimes make mistakes, but if I thought that when I prayed about something the Lord would allow the devil to deliberately mislead me, I'd lose all faith in a loving, protecting Father and would never pray again.

Just because people think they are ordained by God to do something, doesn't make it reality.

The thing is that this IS a reality. There are female deacons, vicars, Ministers and even bishops in several countries.

2. Unfortunately, yes. Your assumption on me is correct.
God would never contradict His word, so we can know when men or women are being mislead, if we see their actions contradicting the pattern God set forth.

Again, this doesn't make sense.
I find it very hard to believe that all women who have prayed about this matter are mistaken - and what's more, that they have either deliberately set out to mislead and dupe male clergy into doing what they want. Men have access to the same Scriptures and the same Holy Spirit. Are they deliberately suppressing what they can read and know to be true? Are they knowingly disobeying God, thus not only sinning but purposely leading women in to sin and disobedience? Why would they do that; why risk condemning themselves and damaging/losing their own salvation and relationship with God just to keep a few women happy? If they are so weak and ineffective, why are they leaders in the first place?

Although it differs slightly from denomination to denomination, testing a call to preach and/or be ordained is a long one - plenty of opportunities for men to say you are mistaken and not called or we are sinning and cannot let you do this. Plenty of opportunities for women to back out and say "we made a mistake"; plenty of opportunities too, for the Lord, who is LORD, to override the whole application and halt the process. Unless you believe that men never pray about this and are not really interested in putting the will of the Lord and Saviour first.

The whole issue is, has God really set forth a pattern and commanded women not to preach or be in leadership? People who take certain verses literally or apply them literally to us today, obviously believe that he has. Other people don't read those Scriptures that way. Fine. But, to me, implying that only one interpretation of Scripture is correct and dismissing all those who disagree as being disobedient/deluded/mislead by the devil smacks of pride - "I can't possibly be mistaken so it is everyone else who is wrong."

Like we discussed before, a lot of things happen that God doesn't want to happen (all kinds of evil...whether its murder or thievery)...but yet He isn't doing anything about them...YET. Judgement day is when all evil will come to light and Jesus will make his "enemies the footstool for his feet".

Are you really saying that someone who preaches the Gospel and does the work of a Minister - visiting the sick, making disciples, baptising, burying the dead etc etc - is involved in EVIL? That a woman who stands up and tells people about Jesus is involved in SIN? That doesn't make sense either; there are a number of women in Scripture who took the word of God to others.

Practically speaking, what happens to all those who may have come to faith through the ministry of a woman? What of people who have become closer to God, understood something about Scripture, been prayed for by a woman and been blessed and healed? What about all the people who have heard my sermons over the last 13 years? What about all the times that I have despaired about what to say, yet I have always been given the words and I, and others, have been blessed? Does God bless and reward sin? Can you find anywhere in Scripture that this happened; people deliberately and knowingly sinned and yet were rewarded, blessed and came to know God in a new and deeper way?

Timothy was charged in that letter to not only establish proper teachings, but also correct/rebuke those who did not follow in line with God. That was how he was to "fulfill" his ministry.
We can do that same thing today.

Yes we can. But preaching the Gospel is not being disobedient to God and is not a sin.

Why is it different? It all lies on the same foundation principal...being careful to only do what God asks...nothing more, nothing less.

I can tell you for certain that being a preacher is what God wants for me. You don't accept, understand or believe it; that's ok, you don't have to. I, my fellow preachers, the clergy and the churches know and accept it.

When we start making up our own rules with out how to do things, we're basically saying that God is imperfect/that He doesn't know what He's talking about/His rules don't produce the best results.
That mindset is dangerous, and is of evil.

When we say that those who sincerely pray and ask God to show them his will for their lives are being led into sin and astray by the devil, we are basically casting doubt on God's promises, on his ability to guide and on the Holy Spirit who convicts people of sin and leads them/us into truth.
That mindset is dangerous too.

Now, I will admit that there are some gray areas in scripture...sometimes we have to reason within ourselves and make decisions differently than others based on our conscience...but other times, scripture is quite plain with what it teaches.

And this is not one of them - otherwise there wouldn't be all these debates and arguments. Unless, as I say, you are implyig that people know perfectly well what God wants and are choosing to disobey and walk in rebellion.

What did you read that would lead you to believe this? Why does He have to stop it right now? He said he's going to stop it on judgement day.

On judgement day, tares will be rooted out and burnt, sinners who have continuously and wilfully rejected God, chosen to do evil and died in their sins will be punished. Children of God who have confessed Jesus as their Saviour, have put their faith in him, washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb will not be punished. We will have to give account for the things we have done, but we have been saved from sin and judgement; we are IN Christ and have every spiritual blessing in him.

And quite frankly, it would be mean of God to allow a Christian to continue in an activity which he knew was sin, but he knew that they thought was his will, and then reveal to them, after death when they have no opportunity to repent, that they had got it wrong and were being disobedient all along. How is that being merciful, loving or fair?

Have to get ready for church now; back later.

 

[Strong in Him]

Am back .

Sometimes scripture is very plainly stating things. Other times, it's ambiguous or semi-ambiguous. For the latter, we have no other choice but to reason and infer.
The problem is taking one or two verses out of context and inferring things about them that totally contradicts other areas of God's word.

Exactly!
One or two verses suggest that women should be silent in church - but look at other areas of Scripture where we see women prophetesses, deacons and evangelists. Where women met with Jesus, received his healing, his word or a revelation and then went to tell others; the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene who was chosen, in place of a man, to be the first witness to the resurrection, Phoebe, the deacon, Lydia and other women who faithfully held prayer meetings in Philippi and may have been co founders of the church there, all those women who were co workers with Paul and were commended for their work for the Gospel.
Women were part of Paul's ministry. He made tents alongside Priscilla and Aquila, must surely have known that they taught Apollos and later greeted the church which met in their house. He wrote a letter to a church he had never visited, Rome, and gave it to a woman to deliver. He told people in that church how much he appreciated women's ministry. He instructed women in another church in prayer and prophecy - that WHEN they did these things, they were to cover their heads. In yet another church he spoke of two deaconesses; even though at that point they had a disagreement, yet they were faithful workers in the Gospel. As I said, that church, Philippi, started after Paul visited the city, found some women at the place of prayer, and converted, and then stayed, with them.
Knowing all this, and that as a Jew he would have been well aware of the roles that Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and Esther played in the life of his nation; why would he, in one of the last letters that he wrote, suddenly say "I want women to be silent and not have authority"?

The problem is that the majority of the so-called Christian world likes to take easy- street and think that following Christ is just going to church once a week and being nice to people.

Maybe they do; don't see what that has to do with this thread though.

But if someone does not qualify for a certain aspect of God's work, then they DO SOMETHING ELSE.

Granted.
But many churches have decided/agreed that women DO qualify for this aspect of God's work. Ultimately it's up to God; it's his work, he is the One who calls and he wants people to serve him.

All of the above?
Specific applications of wife-hood will vary, but the principal should always stand that wives are to put God first then their husband then their children.

And what of the women who are putting God first by obeying his call to be preachers and Ministers? YOU don't believe them; the church does.

God will always make a way to do what is right.

And yet earlier you said that God is leaving women in the "sin" of preaching and will punish them on judgement day. If he will always make a way to do what is right, why doesn't he stop them before they get anywhere near a pulpit?

We're supposed to help one another see God's will more clearly. Even if I couldn't tell a family what they should/shouldn't do--GOD CAN!
And God does.

Yes.
And sometimes he tells women to go out to work and men to stay at home. Sometimes he calls women specifically to preach and be Ministers in the church. It happens; fact.

1 Tim. 6:8 "8 If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content."
Wow. That's truly a powerful verse when we dwell on what it implies.
If all we can afford in life is to feed ourselves, our family, and provide them clothes--WE SHOULD BE CONTENT.
Therefor, a husband and wife should never both need to work to be ok.

That might be the ideal; it doesn't always happen.
In the UK it's possible for a couple to meet at university. They may become engaged, as my nephew did, leave, owing £hundreds in student loans, get married and find a house together. Unless they have super rich parents, win the lottery or are left legacies from rich relatives, how are they going to afford to repay their student loans, pay a mortgage AND have enough for council tax, insurance, buying furniture and for daily living unless they both work? These days, cars and computers are a necessity, not a luxury. It shouldn't be that way, with all the poverty in the world, but it is. And this is before they even think of having children.
Supposing a man is made redundant but is desperate to work, so takes a lower paid job? They might still have a mortgage and young family, or they might have children who want to go to university, get married or buy their first house. How are they to afford that unless the wife takes a job as well?

We don't NEED cars, we don't need televisions, we don't need a 3 bedroom house with a garage and backyard, we don't need steak dinners every week, we don't need [fill in the blank here].

Why are you assuming that a husband and wife choose to work just so that they can have those things and live the good life? Some have to work to keep their heads above water. Two of my sisters-in-law wanted to stay at home with their new baby after their maternity leave; they couldn't afford to. If they had tried, they may have defaulted on their mortgage payments and lost their home. What good would that have done their family?

The apostles wouldn't teach anything different between one congregation and another. Certain advice may have been given because a particular congregation had a need in that area, but that doesn't mean that ONLY that congregation had to follow that advice. It just suggests that all the other congregations must have been doing pretty good in those areas.
In 1 Cor. 5 Paul is outraged that a man has his step-mother's wife. He condemns it strongly. He didn't teach that to Rome, but that's because he didn't find anyone in Rome with that problem.

Paul hadn't been to Rome when he wrote his letter to the church there.
I'm sure that, as a Roman citizen, he knew all about Roman orgies and he had no proof that the church weren't being corrupted by them, yet he doesn't even mention it.

The apostles letters circulated through the congregations. We should count it as a blessing that we have many of those writings...that we can look at ALL the positives and ALL the negatives said about one congregation or another, and learn from them ALL.

Paul's letters were eventually circulated round the churches, but I am fairly sure that they would have glossed over any bits which were clearly not written to them. Like if Paul said "Barnabas will be coming to you shortly", Barnabas might already have been at the other church. Or if Paul said, bring my cloak and scrolls when you come to see me - they would not all have rushed off to do that.

We CAN learn from them all- exactly. We can learn that there is to be order in worship, that women are not to interrupt the speaker, ask questions or hold discussions among themselves and that people who speak in tongues and prophesy should do so only one at a time.

Maybe I can explain this in another way.
I also agree that modern day application won't always be the same as 1st century application. Let's take modesty for example. If you actually look at what modesty mostly means in the NT, it's talking about simplicity. Not as much about sexuality. So like if you look at early Christian writings, you'll notice that they would avoid purple robes and jewelry, orante hair, etc..
So, to my point. I don't think we all need to walk around in un-dyed robes and sandals to follow the NT pattern of modesty in 1 Peter 3.
However, what we can do is simplify our attire IN RELATION TO our immediate social context. So if the norm today for an American women is to have pounds of makeup products, an outfit for every day for 4 weeks straight, all kinds of accessories, 5+ pairs of shoes...and some of the attire being flashy or boldly sensual...
Well, then maybe a Christian modest women would have less clothes/shoes; little-to-no accessories; wear little-to-no makeup; and wear things that are a little simpler (not "hey look at me clothes").

Exactly.
That shows that you are not applying every word of Scripture literally but are looking for the truth/concept that is being taught and asking how we apply that. So why write as though the verses about women are a firm command for everyone today and that those who disobey are being mislead?

 

[Brokenhill]

Brokenhill,

You have demonstrated the patience and humility of a 'Saint'. I commend you on your ability to remain humble in the face of overwhelming resistance. Your approach is both enlightening and inspiring. And your understanding beyond reproach.

Blessings,

MEC

I appreciate that, brother!
God has gracefully enlightened me.
________

Strong In Him,
I will try to reply to you in the next few days...we're moving this week.

 

[Strong in Him]

I appreciate that, brother!
God has gracefully enlightened me.
________

Strong In Him,
I will try to reply to you in the next few days...we're moving this week.

All the best with your move. We did that recently; it can be stressful.

 

[samir]

1) Well-known passages from the Apostle Paul seem to indicate that women are not to have authority over men or even speak in church.

2) God created the man first, then the woman.

3) Every author of Scripture (that we know of) is a man.

4) All of Christ's Apostles were men.

5) Christ himself is a man, and God is clearly described as masculine in Scripture.

Thoughts?

The different roles God created for each gender does not mean one gender is inferior. You could just as easily say all children were born of women and conclude men are inferior for being unable to reproduce. Women also have the role of raising children which is a very important responsibility and necessary to do well for a healthy society. God blessed no one more than Mary who was given the most important role of bringing us our Savior.

 

[Achilles6129]

The different roles God created for each gender does not mean one gender is inferior. You could just as easily say all children were born of women and conclude men are inferior for being unable to reproduce. Women also have the role of raising children which is a very important responsibility and necessary to do well for a healthy society. God blessed no one more than Mary who was given the most important role of bringing us our Savior.

I understand that there were different roles created, but the facts of Scripture seem to make it clear that men have a superior theological function to women. Would you care to comment on those facts, outlined in my OP?

 

[Strong in Him]

I understand that there were different roles created, but the facts of Scripture seem to make it clear that men have a superior theological function to women.

Really?
Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah's wife, Philip's daughters and maybe others who aren't mentioned, gave a word from the Lord to various people. In Huldah's case, this brought about a revival.
Jesus revealed to the woman at the well that he was the Messiah. She went back to her village, told people about Jesus, they went to listen for themselves and believed.
Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness to his resurrection. She went to the men, who were in hiding, told them the Good News and a message about where they were to meet the risen Lord.
At Philippi, women met Paul at the place for prayer, they were converted and Lydia invited Paul to stay with them. She may have been a founder member of the church there.
Phoebe was a deacon, trusted by Paul to take a letter to a church he had never visited; Euodia and Syntyche were deaconesses and Priscilla taught Apollos.
These are all proofs of "inferior theological functions"? Men and women are both made in the image of God; he has given both the ability to read about, relate to, worship, teach about and help others to find and learn about him too.

 

[Achilles6129]

These facts are laid out in my OP. You may interact with them if you wish.