A question to protestants

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,117
72
✟362,291.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I don't want to deny it at all - of course God does not give us all the same role to play in life.
What I dispute is that he has said that he will never allow, or call, women to be ordained or give them the gift of Pastor, Ephesians 4:11; and if they claim otherwise, they are mistaken/lying.

Not at all.
The gifts of the Spirit are not distributed to only one gender; men and women can be teachers, evangelists, pastors, serve others, have the gift of administration, be givers and so on. Nowhere did Paul say, "these 5 are for men only" or "the Lord will never give a woman that gift, not call her to that role."

The difficulty here is that many folks conflate gifts of the Spirit with roles in the church as well as in other spheres of life. Being in leadership is a role, not a gift.
 
Upvote 0

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,815
349
Berlin
✟71,059.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Absolutely there are! Many NT verses attest to it.
Name some.

Whether I agree or disagree now, it looks like your point is that you want to believe what you want to believe while I am referring to what the Christian church has done and believed and understood since antiquity and what the Bible itself supports.
No. I look into the NT and evidence from the old times, while you took traditions from the 2nd century onward, more or less selected in later centuries to fit into the new outline of the then church.

What I said about a church leader that has to be married can be backed up from the bible. It is the normal case assumed in the pastoral letters, while your distinction of laity and clergy is nowhere in the NT.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,815
349
Berlin
✟71,059.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No, it isn't. The idea that Phoebe, out of all the women in the church, was the one and only known woman deacon in the early church, (or even later) is not very persuasive.
She is the only deacon known by name in the NT. There is no male example. And we have female deacons mentioned in 1.Tim 3:11. The fact that we have more information about female deacons than of male deacons is not persuasive for the existence of female deacons?

Especially, when we know that the churches of the first centuries DID have deaconesses.
Where do you know it from? It is not in the NT.

And i8f Phoebe had been a deacon rather than a deaconess, it would mean that the qualifications for being a deacon, which are spelled out in the NT, had been set aside wrongly.
Yes, there are differences between NT and later times. It starts with making a difference between presbuteros and episkopos, two terms for the same role, and ends up at forbidding marriages of "clergymen". It is no surprise to find other deviations from NT times, whether conscious or as a sort of misunderstanding tradition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,815
349
Berlin
✟71,059.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You might be very surprised to hear the Orthodox side of the story about the schism of 1054.
The prodigal son didn't mean orthodox church, but "orthodox" in the sense of "correct teaching", or even "lutheran orthodoxy". While in virtually any "revival" (including reformation) the situation of women was strengthened, orthodox Lutheranism and orthodox Calvinism did not allow woman to become pastors.
 
Upvote 0

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,815
349
Berlin
✟71,059.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The drifting away from biblical truths is a compromise the church in general in all denominations is trying to be friends of the world
That's not true for every instance. Some may drift away out of ignorance. Even moves that are honestly intended as moves away from the "world" can be moves away from what the Bible teaches.
 
Upvote 0

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,815
349
Berlin
✟71,059.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The difficulty here is that many folks conflate gifts of the Spirit with roles in the church as well as in other spheres of life. Being in leadership is a role, not a gift.
Whether the distinction of roles and gifts can be mantained in the light of the NT, theologicans disagree.

So what you think as "conflating" may either be another way of delimiting between the two categories, or it may be real conflating. And the position that this "conflating" is the true way to understand the NT cannot be disproved. At best you can show it is only an option among other ways to understand Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The difficulty here is that many folks conflate gifts of the Spirit with roles in the church as well as in other spheres of life. Being in leadership is a role, not a gift.

I don't know about that; some can lead and some can't. Some are born leaders, others are much happier behind the scenes.
If someone is in the role of leader and has no ability to lead, make decisions, take a stand and inspire those in their team/office/congregation, people soon know about it. Maybe you have never met bad leaders, or suffered from bad leadership? Some people want the high positions because of the status, and/or money involved; but they have no ability to do the job.
Same with the other gifts; would someone call themselves, or take a role as, an evangelist, without a gift for evangelism?

Those God calls, he equips for service.
It's possible that someone who has never led/evangelised/preached etc, or wanted to, is called to do just that - God will then give them the ability to do so.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What I said about a church leader that has to be married can be backed up from the bible. It is the normal case assumed in the pastoral letters, while your distinction of laity and clergy is nowhere in the NT.

:oldthumbsup:
Some people quote the verse which says that a deacon must be the husband of one wife, and say, "there you are, a woman cannot have a wife; a deacon must be a man".
If they are taking that verse literally, a deacon/overseer MUST have a wife, and, in later verses, children too. How do catholics get around that?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
She is the only deacon known by name in the NT. There is no male example.

Where do you know it from? It is not in the NT.

In Acts 6, seven men are named as having been chosen by the church to be deacons, including he who is probably the best-known deacon of all time, Stephen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knee V
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,117
72
✟362,291.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I don't know about that; some can lead and some can't. Some are born leaders, others are much happier behind the scenes.
If someone is in the role of leader and has no ability to lead, make decisions, take a stand and inspire those in their team/office/congregation, people soon know about it. Maybe you have never met bad leaders, or suffered from bad leadership? Some people want the high positions because of the status, and/or money involved; but they have no ability to do the job.
Same with the other gifts; would someone call themselves, or take a role as, an evangelist, without a gift for evangelism?

Those God calls, he equips for service.
It's possible that someone who has never led/evangelised/preached etc, or wanted to, is called to do just that - God will then give them the ability to do so.

Of course there are many in leadership who ought not to be. The fact that they are bad leaders is not because they do not possess any "gift of leadership" but that they fail to meet the biblical qualifications for a leader as given in passages such as I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In both passages there is no mention of any such thing as a "gift of leadership"; rather, leadership is couched in terms of a man's desire to become an elder. The catch-phrase "Those God calls, he equips for service." which is extremely popular, is of modern origin and its biblical base is indirect, at best.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi. I grew up in a Catholic family, lived an atheist life of sin and returned to God through Catholicism. I knew nothing about other denominations.
My big issue was with Marion devotion, my parents being Portuguese are devoted to Our Lady of Fatima. But when I inquired about it in a Catholic forum I was labelled a Protestant.

"What is that?" So I looked into it. I always thought that Catholics where the original religion which held the bible sacred and then the denominations split off with new books, dogmas and doctrines. I was shocked to learn that its the Catholics that have a heap of other stuff besides the bible.

I learnt about "sola scripture" and that the protestants adhere to the bible and so began to wonder if I was even a Catholic anymore or a Protestant now as I believe in sola scripture and not the opportunity for humans to add doctrines to it without any bible foundation.

So now I"m surprised to learn that there are female priests in the Protestant priesthood.

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Timothy 2:11-14 ESV

Scripture is quite clear on that topic, what happened "sola scripture" in this case?
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.

If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).

So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.

So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.

And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.

When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.

Radical change, at that moment.

This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.

In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.

Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.

Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.

So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.

They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.

And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...

Does that make sense?

Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.

You and me -- all of us.

Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.

So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.

If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.

Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.

Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.

@Hazelelponi
@Athanasius377
@Albion
@Chadrho
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course there are many in leadership who ought not to be. The fact that they are bad leaders is not because they do not possess any "gift of leadership" but that they fail to meet the biblical qualifications for a leader as given in passages such as I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

Maybe in some cases; but 1 Timothy 3 says that an overseer must be able to control his children and see that they obey him. I doubt that anyone who has been ordained and later finds that they are not able to have children would be either dismissed from their post or told that they were a bad leader because they did not fulfil all the criteria in 1 Tim 3.

In both passages there is no mention of any such thing as a "gift of leadership"; rather, leadership is couched in terms of a man's desire to become an elder.

So does that make the criteria that we have now too strict/unnecessary - you don't have to be called to be an elder, you just need to want to be one?

The catch-phrase "Those God calls, he equips for service." which is extremely popular, is of modern origin and its biblical base is indirect, at best.

It may be a modern phrase, but it is true.
On our own, and in our own strength, we may have no ability to do whatever we believe God is asking us to do. That is the time to do it, because then we can rely on God and not ourselves. Someone who can do a task with their eyes closed will not need to trust God - they have the skill.
And I know someone for whom that saying was true. Friend of mine has told us a few times that he is a terrible speaker in public; if he HAS to do it he gets tongue tied, stammers etc - yet he is a brilliant preacher, preaches without notes and would do so every week if he could.

Moses, David and Jeremiah, to name but a few, probably said the same thing.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.

If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).

So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.

So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.

And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.

When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.

Radical change, at that moment.

This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.

In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.

Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.

Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.

So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.

They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.

And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...

Does that make sense?

Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.

You and me -- all of us.

Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.

So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.

If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.

Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.

Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.

@Hazelelponi
@Athanasius377
@Albion
@Chadrho

I think the way you have framed our freedom in relation to the strong and the weak is on point. How we use our freedom depends on the context and those who might be affected beneficially or adversely by it. The examples you use of how Paul seems to shift his position in context is important. He was all things to all people. If we take a rigid view of the apostle's teachings, we are not able to exercise our freedom in the Spirit of Christ, and invariably we will cause harm. The law of love reigns supreme, as it was embodied by our Lord. How many examples did he give us of a misuse of the law-humans were not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for humans, and so on? Why would God give us the Spirit if not to discern in context the application of love, much less the application of an apostle's teachings?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.

If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).

So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.

So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.

And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.

When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.

Radical change, at that moment.

This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.

In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.

Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.

Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.

So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.

They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.

And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...

Does that make sense?

Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.

You and me -- all of us.

Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.

So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.

If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.

Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.

Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.

@Hazelelponi
@Athanasius377
@Albion
@Chadrho


I am not sure how to respond because though I read this post no less than five times I still do not understand the point you were trying to make.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am not sure how to respond because though I read this post no less than five times I still do not understand the point you were trying to make.
Sorry! I do think it won't make sense without reading through Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians 8 as part of what is said, and one needs to be familiar with how the epistles tell slaves to remain slaves (several instances), but then later to seek their freedom if possible, and then the amazing letter to Philemon -- all of these are part of the meaning I was talking about. After we have read all of these, we begin to see why slaves were told to remain slaves, and then latter an opposite instruction is given. It begins to make sense, and then we also learn how, when, why and what next about other questions, including the way women are to be in the church even (*), which depends on the actual effect on others in the church, as part of how we gain freedoms in Christ, but not freedom that we can do without regard to others.

-------
*- (women weren't told to be silent for no reason at all, but for a definite reason, which we can learn by this wide reading in scripture)
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,125
7,245
Dallas
✟873,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The prodigal son didn't mean orthodox church, but "orthodox" in the sense of "correct teaching", or even "lutheran orthodoxy". While in virtually any "revival" (including reformation) the situation of women was strengthened, orthodox Lutheranism and orthodox Calvinism did not allow woman to become pastors.

It looks like he’s referring to the Orthodox Church. I mean a person doesn’t typically refer to a Calvinist or Lutheran Church as being Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.

If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).

So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.

So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.

And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.

When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.

Radical change, at that moment.

This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.

In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.

Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.

Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.

So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.

They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.

And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...

Does that make sense?

Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.

You and me -- all of us.

Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.

So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.

If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.

Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.

Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.

@Hazelelponi
@Athanasius377
@Albion
@Chadrho

While I already believe it is scriptural in every capacity for women to participate fully in ALL functions of ministry, I had never considered this particular point in the way you've presented it, but it makes a great deal of sense and is also consistent when looking at the entirety of scripture as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BNR32FAN
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Sorry! I do think it won't make sense without reading through Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians 8 as part of what is said, and one needs to be familiar with how the epistles tell slaves to remain slaves (several instances), but then later to seek their freedom if possible, and then the amazing letter to Philemon -- all of these are part of the meaning I was talking about. After we have read all of these, we begin to see why slaves were told to remain slaves, and then latter an opposite instruction is given. It begins to make sense, and then we also learn how, when, why and what next about other questions, including the way women are to be in the church even (*), which depends on the actual effect on others in the church, as part of how we gain freedoms in Christ, but not freedom that we can do without regard to others.

-------
*- (women weren't told to be silent for no reason at all, but for a definite reason, which we can learn by this wide reading in scripture)
I am familiar with the scripture you quoted. So I will come right out and ask you, what is your position and how does 1 cor 8 and rom 14 and Phil fit? Be specific because your clarification was less of a word salad than the first but a word salad none the less. I am not trying to be offensive rather pointing out the posts lack category distinctions thus making it difficult to understand your point(s).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am familiar with the scripture you quoted. So I will come right out and ask you, what is your position and how does 1 cor 8 and rom 14 and Phil fit? Be specific because your clarification was less of a word salad than the first but a word salad none the less. I am not trying to be offensive rather pointing out the posts lack category distinctions thus making it difficult to understand your point(s).
Ok, to better communicate clearly, it will help if I understand just what part I'm not communicating well, and one thing I think would help is to find out if you yourself think you should literally give up eating meat if vegetarian that is weak in faith joins your congregation and invites you to his house, and you invite him at some point -- do you think you should not eat meat around him? I'd guess you'd say yes, you'd go vegetarian around him and also at all places he'd normally hear of also(!) -- like at any other gathering involving members of the church he'd get to know and hear about -- you do this for his sake, because he needs this, being weak. Right? You would give up meat for his sake?

And a different question, which may help me answer more clearly, what is your view of 1 Corinthians 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ?
You'd want your wife to cover her hair, as needed, depending on the company?
What are your own personal views about when women should wear a scarf or head covering -- always, at times, when?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0