Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I grew up with verbal abuse. I was judged by an atheist father. God did not tell him that all people without college educations are losers.As this thread is titled 'Not a lot of respect for men' I think it's wise to never cite this requirement for husbands from Ephesians 5 without also citing the requirement for wives from the same section: 'to submit to their husbands as to Christ' and 'to fear/reverence their husbands'.
And as husbands should love their wives even when their wives don't properly submit or fear/reverence them, in the same way the wives should still submit and fear/reverence their husbands even when they don't properly love them.
Of course I'm not talking about a situation where a husband literally beats his wife up, but these days the definition of 'abuse' gets stretched so much that any (verbal) correction or setting boundaries setting by a husband may already be construed as emotional abuse (this is not a joke).
Be blessed sisters .. !
When it says that women are saved through child bearing I think it refers back to the promise in Genesis 3:15 . It was a woman who brought forth the man child. Not only are women saved but men also. It was women who were the the mothers of all the prophets and Apostles as well as all of GODS saints. The 5th commandment contains a promise , Ephesians 6:2-3 The woman is that delicate vessel which their husbands should love and cherish. It is family now on earth that becomes adopted into the family of GOD, brothers and sisters to our lord Jesus Christ.
Your false statements about Calvinists prove you don't know Calvinism.With the childbearing thing, theres FAR too many problems with the interpretation that unless you have children, you aren't saved. What about women who can't have kids? That is like saying God created them for the sole purpose to condemn them to hell. I know Calvinists agree with that stance, but then that is just an evil God in my opinion. So ultimately then, there is an issue when other scripture and dozens of other passages talk about the saving faith and grace of Jesus. That forms a contradiction. So just on surface level there are issues and it bugs me that people teach to accept Pauls 1 sentence and just toss out the entire new testament because then it doesn't apply.
I really like this explanation, so I'm going to post it with the Link that maybe it will edify you tooLink
The reason why that makes the most sense is because during that time, women were not getting married or having children and instead, were leaders in the cult of Diana (Artemis). They were also promoting the lifestyle being a single woman (sound familiar?? *cough* today's 'women empowerment' *cough*) So Paul again, was addressing the issues for that particular place and culture and he's saying that if women reject that cult culture, that they would be saved from the deception that the cult was going on about and ultimately, be saved in a salvation sense "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety".
I don't agree with the allegory interpretation of it essentially being referring to Jesus because the grammar makes this really hard to accept. Not to mention we have examples of when Paul uses allegories and he's a lot more direct and clear. The Greek word used is τϵκνoγoνιˊα (teknogonias), which is a general, abstract noun meaning "childbearing" or "the bearing of children." abstract nouns like teknogonias are often used with the definite article (τη~ς - tēs) without necessarily pointing to one unique, specific event. It often simply denotes the category or sphere of the action (i.e., "the whole business of childbearing"). So if this was based on Jesus, that's an extremely vague way to say it.W
When it says that women are saved through child bearing I think it refers back to the promise in Genesis 3:15 . It was a woman who brought forth the man child. Not only are women saved but men also. It was women who were the the mothers of all the prophets and Apostles as well as all of GODS saints. The 5th commandment contains a promise , Ephesians 6:2-3 The woman is that delicate vessel which their husbands should love and cherish. It is family now on earth that becomes adopted into the family of GOD, brothers and sisters to our lord Jesus Christ.
Calvinists main theology is that you are either chosen or not chosen. If you are chosen, you are saved regardless of what you do, it is out of your hands. If you are not chosen, there is nothing you can do about it. So my statement, "That is like saying God created them for the sole purpose to condemn them to hell." Is accurate.Your false statements about Calvinists prove you don't know Calvinism.
Thanks all for your responses.
I don't want my emotions to shut down the discussion here but, like Paul, my statements had context relative to a specific situation.
Unlike Paul, I have tried to make that clear so there is no confusion!
Summary for those new to the thread: my daughter asked about salvation being contingent on childbirth because we are sinful, easily deceived, lead others to sin (according to Paul) all the while seeing men, outside and within her own family, doing these things with no mention of their sinfulness by Paul who seems to, nonetheless, appoint these men to lead with no contingency on their salvation i.e. childbirth.
Initially, I told my daughter the rules weren't ours to question but trust in God and follow.
But, the more I thought about it, prayed about it, sought answers to it, the more my doubts aligned with my daughter because I realized there was no way men of a certain calibre will ever gain my respect, obedience etc. It just won't happen.
Then, the more I thought about where the instruction came from (Paul), the more I realized that maybe that's okay. Then, I was told it was okay because it was never meant for me/all women, in the way it has been presented by some, in the first place.
I accept that some will think that I am sinning if I don't 'submit to authority' but their definition and interpretation is not the same as what I have been provided and so I have to accept a) I am sinning but hope it makes sense to Jesus why this is and He is merciful because, unless He sees fit to correct and/or intervene, I am unyielding on this point b) realize that I (and countless others) have been taught in error and so nothing to accept, anyway.
I feel sorry for my mom that she stays in her marriage because she thinks she is sinning if she leaves despite the circumstances. I pray for both of my parents. They deeply need Jesus.
As for my daughter, I have told her about this discussion and we continue to pray and seek guidance regarding scripture.
I didn't. Refer to my last response to you. As far as the rest of it, I don't want to derail the topic and get into a debate.But that wasn't what brought my attention to your view of Calvinism. You suggested that Calvinism teaches that childless women go to hell; that is not true.
That would have been terrible, sorry to hear that - did he claim God revealed that to him while being an atheist? In situations like that it may take time to get used to the metaphor of God as our benevolent Father - or deal with positive male authority in general. I wish you healing.I grew up with verbal abuse. I was judged by an atheist father. God did not tell him that all people without college educations are losers.
Your honesty I do appreciate in admitting you set aside instructions/exhortations from the Apostle Paul because he isn't Jesus; I presume you would do the same for the Apostle Peter (who had similar instructions for the husband/wife relationship)? So anything that isn't directly said by Jesus (as found in the NT) or God in the TNK/OT can be set aside?'Verbal correction' and 'boundary setting' is not applicable to my mom and dads relationship.
I have said, and will say again, that things in that household are egregious and there is no way I would submit to him and I really don't care what scripture says about it because a)Paul isn't Jesus Christ b)I answer only to Jesus Christ c)if Jesus had issue, I believe He would let me know in this life or the next but I would be ready with my defence of my actions given the situation
This is how I was taught, recently, that this verse applied. As for men who take the 'chauvinist view', we can refer to @Reluctant Theologian for an example where men do, in fact, think they are the 'leaders' of the household under all circumstances and above their wives.
Thank you very much for your response and I thank you for your questions which are thought provoking and valid!Your honesty I do appreciate in admitting you set aside instructions/exhortations from the Apostle Paul because he isn't Jesus; I presume you would do the same for the Apostle Peter (who had similar instructions for the husband/wife relationship)? So anything that isn't directly said by Jesus (as found in the NT) or God in the TNK/OT can be set aside?
You literally say 'I don't care what scripture says ...' (when it's not a direct quote from Jesus) .. that's quite a different position from what believers have taken in the last two millennia of Christianity. What then is left from the Bible in your view that is worth taking in?
My viewpoint on this whole issue (men/women/husband/wives) is the exact same as all of Christianity held for nearly 2000 years .. (until the 1960's feminist wave and the beginning of the egalitarian movement in the church). You label the views of the Apostles, church fathers and believers in that entire period 'chauvenist'? Paul refers the to Law/Torah (1 Corinthians 14:34–35) in this context (and the Law is given by God) - is God also chauvenist?
I'm not a traditionalist at all (and even non-denominational), but your viewpoint on the authority of the Apostles and NT scripture to me is very, very scary. Still it's good you have expressed your view frankly - but any Biblically-based discourse becomes pointless when either party simply chooses to discard anything the Apostles may have said (because they're not Jesus).
Please talk to your Church Pastor about this issue. Be blessed .. !
Thank you. Yes, you summed this up for me nicely and the way you did so aligned with the way the church has taught me.Just tell your daughter not to worry about salvation since it's not, and never was, dependent upon childbearing. You might also share with your daughter that Paul was addressing problems in the Ephesian church that Timothy was dealing with as a pastor there in the 1st century. I think I mentioned some of this in another post or two somewhere else in the recent past, but I forget where, CC.
In sum, Paul was dealing with the 'aid' of prayers for SURVIVING childbirth made by Ephesian women to Artemis, since Artemis was a fertility goddess. In those times, just as in the not so distant past, mortality for women during childbirth was much, much higher than it is on average today, so when women in Ephesus became Christians and gave up praying for survival to Artemis, they may have been concerned if Jesus would answer the prayers they used to give to Artemis. Paul was telling Timothy to assure those women to not let go of their faith and their good behavior in associating with Christ, because He heard their prayers on this matter.
Healing finally came through a male therapist and my reflection on my Dad's troubled childhood. But it was mostly sfter my Dad passed away. Not all men are as troubled as he was. I trusted God as a benevolent Father most of my life, even after trying to believe the rottten teachings of Mormonism which I encountered as a teen. They baptized me, but their non-Trinity god isn't merciful.That would have been terrible, sorry to hear that - did he claim God revealed that to him while being an atheist? In situations like that it may take time to get used to the metaphor of God as our benevolent Father - or deal with positive male authority in general. I wish you healing.
I believe the BIBLE and it's contents are totally inspired by God. Yet I don't understand all of it yet.Thank you. Yes, you summed this up for me nicely and the way you did so aligned with the way the church has taught me.
I think @Reluctant Theologian (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, here!) does not agree with this viewpoint for the reasons he has stated before.
He would not be alone in this, which may be why my church felt the need to address it, since they have women leaders e.g. Director of Ministry.
I can only assume someone questioned the biblical soundness of this, but cannot be sure.
I was not rebellious and was faithful to my husband for almost 43 years when he passed away of cancer.As this thread is titled 'Not a lot of respect for men' I think it's wise to never cite this requirement for husbands from Ephesians 5 without also citing the requirement for wives from the same section: 'to submit to their husbands as to Christ' and 'to fear/reverence their husbands'.
And as husbands should love their wives even when their wives don't properly submit or fear/reverence them, in the same way the wives should still submit and fear/reverence their husbands even when they don't properly love them.
Of course I'm not talking about a situation where a husband literally beats his wife up, but these days the definition of 'abuse' gets stretched so much that any (verbal) correction or setting boundaries setting by a husband may already be construed as emotional abuse (this is not a joke).
Be blessed sisters .. !
I don't like debate. God, not debate, converts people. But Cakvinists don't teach that childless women go to hell.I didn't. Refer to my last response to you. As far as the rest of it, I don't want to derail the topic and get into a debate.
Thanks, I've read most if not all of the common arguments made in the Egalitarian/Complimentarian/Patriarchy debate - rarely do I encounter something new. And the infamous but decisive 'source' word topic hasn't even been discussed in-depth in this thread yet. But just because I've studied and weighed those 'modern' arguments with some confidence I can say these don't convince me - not because I'm simply clutching to tradition or don't like change, but because the classical Patriarchal view overall fits the big picture much better and make Torah, Yeshua, Paul and Peter and the history of the Church in those two thousands years align well ...Thank you very much for your response and I thank you for your questions which are thought provoking and valid!
Regarding Paul, I don't take his instructions to be instructions in the way that you do, so we will differ about how much weight to apply scripture from his words, then to now, and the implications of either adhering to them or disregarding them.
My comment regarding not caring what scripture says should have really been along the lines of, "I don't care what scripture says in the way others interpret it," because there are many interpretations and many sources state that they are not sure what the true meaning of Paul's words are, given various theories, and then settled on 'most likely'. Please refer to my GotQuestions link above for confirmation of just one source that admits the indeterminate meaning around Paul's statement.
Absolutely - I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about many things; I just don't know which ones - prayerfully I read and contemplate. I avoid turning it into a battle field, what still easily happens as it is such an emotionally charged subject.Given the above, 'most likely' can mean a lot of things including what we'd 'most likely' hope he meant, given how we have been taught, our family backgrounds, the society we currently live in, the society we wish we'd live in etc. So, I do appreciate there will be bias from all sides when trying to ascertain 'most likely'.
I am not alone in the view that Paul's comments/instructions were time/place specific (please refer to the majority on this post who agree that Paul was speaking in context specific to a time and place and not intended to generalize across millennia). But, I appreciate that could mean that many of us are wrong so welcome viewpoints on this, if you don't mind.
Without Paul we would struggle to properly understand many aspects of Christianity; e.g. without Paul's letters we would not really know why Yeshua had to die on the cross (as that is not really addressed in the Gospels theologically). Paul's and Peter's instructions on the role of women in marriage and churches are not vague at all - they're quite clear, and that's precisely the reason why these instructions were not controversial or heavily debated in Christian history (until the 1960's) .. everyone knew with some confidence what it meant. It's just that since the 1960's modern society does not like those instructions because the underlying framework and view on the role of husband and wife is incompatible with modern Western (and certainly woke) thinking.The apostles who knew Jesus, personally, I would not view in the same way. I don't actually disregard Paul's teachings, in their entirety, but he did not know Jesus, personally, so there is much more room for questioning what he says vs apostles who were taught by Jesus, directly. I would say that would be true, even for me, as I never met Jesus, personally, so we have interpretations on what He said/meant based on written text rather than direct word of mouth from the time He was on earth. I do my best in prayer, adhering to the bible insomuch as I understand it and the guidance of others but I would not compare this to direct instruction as the apostles received.
Further to this, Jesus was never vague or unclear in His instructions. Why is it that the apostles, and Paul in particular, cause so much confusion? If we removed Paul from the NT, and only went by what Jesus said directly, our instructions for life on earth and salvation would be much clearer and the bible would be much shorter.
About 70-80% of churches in Western countries have moved from the Patriarchal to the Egalitarian view I estimate - your church would be one of those. In those churches speakers would have to generalise or skip entire sections of the NT, or transform any gender-specific instruction into a unisex one ... leaving the worldview and theological framework of the NT writers - and the underlying nuance is lost.Regarding 'chauvinism', I would not like to say that you are or aren't. The points you make can be viewed under that banner but that doesn't mean the word needs to be applied to your identity. Like you, I do think this word is thrown around a lot, misused etc.
I am taking from you, though, that your view is that society allows sin and tries to twist the words to make sin okay. I agree with you that this happens all the time and across nations. But, I don't think this applies to the point of my thread at all.
As I have stated before, if men are meant to lead because they are all the things women are not, according to Paul, then I need to see that men are truly all the things that women are not for this to stand. It cannot stand because it's simply not true. Therefore, it seems to make sense to me that Paul's words were aimed towards a specific audience for a specific reason and cannot be used as instruction for everyone, everywhere for all time.
Regarding seeking assistance via the pastor, that is a great suggestion, but they have already stated that Paul's comments were aimed to a specific audience so their view is already known to me and was made known to me during a sermon made after I made this post.
For the 2nd time, that is not what I'm saying. If my wording made it seem that way, I apologize, but that was not my point which is why I referred you to my first response that I made that clarified my point. My point was based on Calvanists Unconditional Election stance (The U in TULIP) and how the argument for childless mothers being about salvation is equivalent to Calvanists argument root of Unconditional Election, not literally saying Calvanists preach childless women go to hell.I don't like debate. God, not debate, converts people. But Cakvinists don't teach that childless women go to hell.
If you are saved, you strive to please Christ. If you are not saved, you don't love Christ and don't have His Spirit,Calvinists main theology is that you are either chosen or not chosen. If you are chosen, you are saved regardless of what you do, it is out of your hands. If you are not chosen, there is nothing you can do about it. So my statement, "That is like saying God created them for the sole purpose to condemn them to hell." Is accurate.
It is clear that you want salvation to be man's choice while he is a sinner instead of God's choice. Some vessels are made for destruction. God chooses to only save some.For the 2nd time, that is not what I'm saying. If my wording made it seem that way, I apologize, but that was not my point which is why I referred you to my first response that I made that clarified my point. My point was based on Calvanists Unconditional Election stance (The U in TULIP) and how the argument for childless mothers being about salvation is equivalent to Calvanists argument root of Unconditional Election, not literally saying Calvanists preach childless women go to hell.
I hope that clears things up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?