Women ruling, a bad thing?

[Ih8s8n]

Romans 13:6-8 (King James Version)



6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


Lack of respect for the message based on gender, ethnicity or social standing are unscriptural. This thread breaks all 2 of those 3.

Sighhhhh....

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For HE is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for HE beareth not the sword in vain: for HE is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:1-7)

Paul, not Jesus, was talking about paying tribute (taxes) and giving fear and honour to those who were apparently soldiers (he beareth not the sword in vain) that executed judgement against evildoers or the equivalent of modern day police officers. You'll also notice, begrudgingly, I suppose, that they were all MEN. He...he...he...or hehehe, if you prefer. In other words, this has absolutely nothing to do with the error that you're spouting.

Abraham's other sons seem much better suited for you. That is not from the Grace which is of the promise....jus sayin'

I'm doing just fine with the One Who came from Isaac's lineage, thank you. You? Well, you might be better suited in such an environment as you describe. Afterall, if I'd been espousing such error, then I might be looking to veil my face...

Now, would you like to address any of the verses that I've cited which clearly speak about the proper relationship between a man and his wife in regards to God-given authority or should I just expect some more desperate measures such as this latest one? It's God's Word that you're rebelling against and not mine. Not a good position to be in.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

God is not found in your interpretation of the letter of the law

 

[Ih8s8n]

God is not found in your interpretation of the letter of the law

maid in His image: You still don't want to address any of the verses that I've cited, do you? Your choice. Incidentally, IF (I said "if") this latest comment of yours is to infer that there's a difference between "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law" (a Bill Clintonism, for sure), THEN you're incorrect in this as well. Here's the oft misquoted verse, in it's proper context:

"Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministratrion of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." (II Corinthians 3:1-9)

I'll stop here to comment. Here, Paul was speaking of the contrast between the Old Testament/Covenant (that which was engraven in stones) and the New Testament/Covenant (that which is in fleshy tables of the heart). The Old Testament law "killeth" in that it shows one their sinfulness before a Holy God. Paul called it both the ministration of condemnation and the ministration of death. This was actually the first purpose for which the law was given...that every mouth might be stopped and that the whole world might become guilty before God (Romans 3:19). The law's second purpose was to be a schoolmaster or tutor to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith in His atoning sacrifice on our behalfs. This is "the spiriit that giveth life". In other words, there's no such thing as "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law"...a bunch of nonsense that was concocted by someone who didn't like the plain implications of scripture and therefore had to somehow "spiritualize" it to make it say what they wanted it to say. Anyhow, once again, I've "found God" just fine. In fact, He's with me (not to mention in me) even as I type.

P.S.

Oh, I almost forgot...

This "able minister of the New Testament" is the one whom I've quoted repeatedly from I Corinthians, Ephesians and I Timothy. Would you like to refute any of his comments? Better yet, would you like to submit yourself to them? Something for you to hopefully ponder.

 

[Johnnz]

maid in His image: You still don't want to address any of the verses that I've cited, do you?

I'll stop here to comment. Here, Paul was speaking of the contrast between the Old Testament/Covenant (that which was engraven in stones) and the New Testament/Covenant (that which is in fleshy tables of the heart).

What about the many posts on this thread providing other scriptures that must be taken into account and the alternative exegesis of some of your own 'proof texts' that are just denied or ignored by the men only group?

The word 'minister' that was in your quote from 2 Cor is a non technical word, often translated as 'servant' (the root meaning of the word) in the NT. The NT writers never used a Greek word for any 'position' (function is a better word to use) in the church that denotes authority over, although there were many such word available.

The new covenant indeed. What a wonderful new provision of God. Open access to our Father, our High Priest called Jesus, new and better promises, the indwelling of the holy Spirit, death dealt a mortal blow, resurrection the beginning of the restoration of the cosmos, a new society where the old divisions of race, gender and status, the great dividers of humanity within history are abolished, leadership rooted in servanthood, not power and position and their abuses. History reached its turning point in Jesus. Looking backwards denies the wonder of that new covenant. For freedom Christ set us free (Gal 5:1). Rejoice.

John
NZ

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The substance and the shadow are lost on many.

 

[Ih8s8n]

What about the many posts on this thread providing other scriptures that must be taken into account and the alternative exegesis of some of your own 'proof texts' that are just denied or ignored by the men only group?

Johnnz: I came into this thread very late and missed about the first 50 or 60 pages. I have recently begun to read the thread from page 1, but I've only made it through the first 4 pages thus far. Anyhow, if there's any specific post or "alternative exegesis" that you'd like me to consider/address, then please provide either a link to such or just cut and paste it. Thanks.

The word 'minister' that was in your quote from 2 Cor is a non technical word, often translated as 'servant' (the root meaning of the word) in the NT. The NT writers never used a Greek word for any 'position' (function is a better word to use) in the church that denotes authority over, although there were many such word available.

I only mentioned Paul being an "able minister of the New Testament" because it related to "the letter of the law" that maid in His image mentioned and also because it is his quotes that I've addressed from the New Testament. Anyhow, are you suggesting that there's no authority structure that is taught in the New Testament? No authority structure within the church? No authority structure within the home? No authority structure IN THE WORLD TO COME? If you are, then you're dead wrong.

The new covenant indeed. What a wonderful new provision of God. Open access to our Father, our High Priest called Jesus, new and better promises, the indwelling of the holy Spirit, death dealt a mortal blow, resurrection...

So far, so good.

...the beginning of the restoration of the cosmos...

Are you talking about the new heavens and the new earth that are yet to come? If so, there's "a whole lotta shakin'" that's going to take place first. Everything in its appointed time.

...a new society where the old divisions of race, gender and status, the great dividers of humanity within history are abolished...

Like it or not, there are still "divisions" along some of these lines..."divisions" which have been ordained by God Himself. Why do you insist on fighting AGAINST HIM? Answer the posts that I've made. You tried once or twice and failed miserably. Care to try again?

...leadership rooted in servanthood...

I'm all for it and I've never spoken a single word against it.

...not power and position and their abuses...

I've repeatedly denounced abuse. You know, for someone who says so much, you never really seem to address the actual issues, but always seem to seek to erect a strawman. Like I said, do you care to address the actual things that I've posted? Doesn't seem so. I don't blame you...God's Word thoroughly refutes much of what you say.

History reached its turning point in Jesus.

Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Have you ever considered this...especially in how it relates to the topic at hand? Like it or not, God ordained for marriage to be a natural representation of the spiritual union that He seeks with His people. This is not my opinion, but the plain teaching of scripture.

Looking backwards denies the wonder of that new covenant.

I've denied nothing in the New Covenant. Care to show that I have? Good luck with that. In fact, I've repeatedly quoted from the New Covenant that you and others reject in your stubborn rebellion.

For freedom Christ set us free (Gal 5:1)

Jesus, as His very name dictates, set us free FROM SIN and not from obedience. In fact, He's coming back in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who obey not His gospel. With such in mind, why do you continue to teach/support rebellion? Have you no fear of God? Apparently not. Pity.

Rejoice.

Being cognizant of your condition and the conditions of some others on this thread, I feel much more compelled to weep.

 

[razeontherock]

Oh, do you not believe the Bible is inerrant? 1 lone Scripture is just as important as all the rest.

Interesting point of Scripture:

"the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

I find if you only have ONE statement from Scripture, you may very well be twisting it to conform to your own agenda. Dangerous, I'm sure you'll agree.

I also find that if you find something the Bible really intends, you will find at least one other passage plainly agreeing with it. And there will be at least one more passage corroborating that, even if it is veiled. Some take it a step further, that these passages need to come from different authors.

Anyway, this is what is meant by "the whole of Scripture." This is a very important point! (Along with the more obvious, nothing contradicting the point you are trying to advance) Now that I understand you a little better, I can provide you with this detail which I couldn't know was needed earlier.

Please be sure that your understanding of any single passage agrees with THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE. This is a difficult process that involves suffering for a little while, but causes us to be established.

 

[razeontherock]

Brother raze, I notice this is your sig. The Bible ends up explaining itself, once every word of it has become completely engrained in one's memory, and one sees the connections between verses. By comparing and combining related verses from different places in the Bible, combined w/ doing the Father's will, we arrive at correct doctrine.

Do you think creating a new verse out of many verses is better than what God has already given us?

No. I do believe we need to be able to rightly divide the Word of Truth though. And I have found that I am more effective with unbelievers with my own words, than I am quoting Scripture. That is something I was NOT willing to do as a young Christian, and it has taken me decades to be able to do this w/ confidence that I present Truth. It is quite humbling, too

 

[Ih8s8n]

The substance and the shadow are lost on many.

maid in His image: Whether you realize it or not, your denial of God's ordained authority is teaching rebellion to all of those within your sphere of influence. You can deny the God-given authority within the confines of a marriage until you're blue in the face, but all that you're doing is teaching the world, through your rebellion, that Christians need not obey the Lord as this is what the natural union between a husband and a wife "shadows". In other words, your own words (I'm talking about your "quote") condemn YOU. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes...

 

[razeontherock]

Oh, I certainly don't mean to take verses out of context. I only asked whether he believed the Bible is inerrant. He doesn't seem to.

I am curious what gives you this impression? I hold that it is ESSENTIAL to resolve all apparent contradictions in Scripture, before we can really think we grasp any of it. (I try to convey this via my sig, which is almost quoted from somebody else.) I would think this implies that G-d is perfect, worthy of all our Praise, that His thoughts are above our own, and that His Word is likewise perfect.

 

[Johnnz]

Anyhow, are you suggesting that there's no authority structure that is taught in the New Testament? No authority structure within the church? No authority structure within the home? No authority structure IN THE WORLD TO COME? If you are, then you're dead wrong.

Church. Our starting point must be:Luke 22:25-26 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. NIV

As I said there is function, those gifts for our mutual benefit, not ruler-ship over. The only authority is Christ.
The Home. Self sacrificing servanthood. Eph 5:25-26 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
NIV

Are you talking about the new heavens and the new earth that are yet to come? If so, there's "a whole lotta shakin'" that's going to take place first. Everything in its appointed time.

Yes, more to come. But the future has begin in Jesus. The kingdom of God is all about that, God's rule coming into this world in and through His people.

I've repeatedly denounced abuse. You know, for someone who says so much, you never really seem to address the actual issues, but always seem to seek to erect a strawman. Like I said, do you care to address the actual things that I've posted? Doesn't seem so. I don't blame you...God's Word thoroughly refutes much of what you say.

You have misrepresented my use of the word. I referred to abuse of power and position that has gone on within human history.

Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Have you ever considered this...especially in how it relates to the topic at hand? Like it or not, God ordained for marriage to be a natural representation of the spiritual union that He seeks with His people. This is not my opinion, but the plain teaching of scripture.

I don't see how this relates to what I said. But anyway, with marriage Paul used that image to express the intimacy of the relationship, not an authority structure.

I've denied nothing in the New Covenant. Care to show that I have? Good luck with that. In fact, I've repeatedly quoted from the New Covenant that you and others reject in your stubborn rebellion.

...why do you continue to teach/support rebellion? Have you no fear of God? Apparently not. Pity.

If rebellion means that women have a God given equality in all aspects of life of God's kingdom then I accept that label willingly. Which means I could see the pro male only leadership as rebellion against the liberty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Being cognizant of your condition and the conditions of some others on this thread, I feel much more compelled to weep.

So do I, for the many women who are confined in their divine calling, and the consequent reduction of true manhood that entails.

John
NZ

 

[JacktheCatholic]

God is not found in your interpretation of the letter of the law

What can limit God and where he is found? Didn't Jesus descend to Hell to share the Good News? Did Satan have any control over our Lord?

As to women being leaders I think it obvious from the OT and NT that women have been leaders and integral with God's design so there is no reason a woman could not be a leader IMO.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What can limit God and where he is found? Didn't Jesus descend to Hell to share the Good News? Did Satan have any control over our Lord?

As to women being leaders I think it obvious from the OT and NT that women have been leaders and integral with God's design so there is no reason a woman could not be a leader IMO.

Nothing can limit or diminish God's light. He can be found just as much in the black backdrop as He can in what shines forth from it. Satan can only do what God allows. We are all on a journey with Him that is into truth that just gets infinitely deeper. However hell is there for a reason....or was...or is that just the black backdrop that we see that Jesus will not leave us in?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Nothing can limit or diminish God's light. He can be found just as much in the black backdrop as He can in what shines forth from it. Satan can only do what God allows. We are all on a journey with Him that is into truth that just gets infinitely deeper. However hell is there for a reason....or was...or is that just the black backdrop that we see that Jesus will not leave us in?

Hell is the absence of God. That is why it is better to light one candle then to curse the darkness.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hell is the absence of God. That is why it is better to light one candle then to curse the darkness.

 

[Ih8s8n]

Church. Our starting point must be:Luke 22:25-26 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. NIV

Johnnz: Starting with Luke 22:25-26 is just fine with me. Ironically, as I've mentioned before, I've recently spent more than 5 years on a forum made up of hardcore, diehard, God-hating atheists. Do you know what I spent the better part of my time there doing? Countering all of their claims of how Christianity is an "abusive" religion. Do you know what verse I cited more than any other while I was there? The parallel to this verse that is found in Matthew 20:25-28. And? What does this prove? Does this negate "authority"? Not at all. Peter said:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (I Peter 5:1-4)

YES, those WHO HAVE THE OVERSIGHT are not to "lord it over the flock", but they still have the oversight. Why do you suppose that Peter referred to Jesus as "the chief Shepherd"? Because there were/are under-shepherds as well...which is precisely why he referred to the people as "the FLOCK of God". Didn't Peter, although not "lording it over anyone", have AUTHORITY? Of course, he did. Look at what happened with Ananias and Sapphira, for one example. See him partaking in councils and writing epistles. Are you suggesting that he didn't do so from a position of AUTHORITY? You're kidding yourself (not me), if/since you are. What about all of the pastoral epistles that Paul wrote? Should we just discard them and have every man do as he pleases? Hey, that sounds like Israel's condition when there was no judge in the land, doesn't it? Sure does. Like it or not (not), God's kingdom is just that...A KINGDOM. Within this KINGDOM, there is delegated AUTHORITY. I see part of your problem (you've got more than one)...

Every time is say AUTHORITY, you hear ABUSE.

That's your problem and not God's or mine. Deal with it. Even in the midst of genuine abuse, God's Word still instructs us to accept improper treatment for His name's sake. You know...following in Christ's steps and all that. You can read about it in this same first epistle of Peter (and elsewhere), if you'd like to.

As I said there is function, those gifts for our mutual benefit, not ruler-ship over. The only authority is Christ.

And Christ is the One Who gave gifts to men, including what is commonly referred to as the five-fold ministry. Should we discard such to please you? No, thanks...I'll stick with scripture. "Mutual benefit"? Absolutely. There's your problem, AGAIN. I speak of AUTHORITY and you hear ABUSE.

The Home. Self sacrificing servanthood. Eph 5:25-26 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
NIV

And you conveniently overlook/ignore the part that says...

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

...just as you conveniently overlook/ignore other verses which basically say the same exact thing. Once again, like it or not, God's desired covenant with His people in continually likened to a marriage covenant all throughout scripture with Christ being the Bridegroom and the church His bride. Like it or not, God desires for a natural union between a man and his wife to mirror this desired spiritual union. Like it or not, in such a union, the husband is the head over the wife even as Christ is the head over the church. Like it or not, Christ's headship involves AUTHORITY and so does a husband's headship. Now, you, with your serious problem can equate such headship with ABUSE all that you want to, but it will never do anything to change the plain teachings of scripture. Never.

You have misrepresented my use of the word. I referred to abuse of power and position that has gone on within human history.

I've misrepresented nothing. I'm on the record as saying that I'm against abuse IN ANY FORM OR FASHION. If need be, I'll dig up the quote and repost it for you.

I don't see how this relates to what I said. But anyway, with marriage Paul used that image to express the intimacy of the relationship, not an authority structure.

There are numerous posts where this has been explicitly explained by me, so I won't even bother rehashing this with you. For the rest who haven't shut their eyes and hardened their hearts, there is clearly an authority structure, SET UP BY GOD HIMSELF, within the confines of marriage.

From now on, where you're specifically concerned, I'll take my own advice that I gave to another poster on this thread and not bother to rehash things with you anymore.

 

[Johnnz]

Why can't oversight = loving care? There is no implicit authority in that term.

NT:1983
e)piskope/w
episkopeo (ep-ee-skop-eh'-o); from NT:1909 and NT:4648; to oversee; by implication, to beware:

And Peter uses that term in juxtaposition against lording it over - a common form of Hebrew writing known and contrary parallelism.

NT:2634 NT:2634

NT:2634
katakurieu/w
katakurieuo (kat-ak-oo-ree-yoo'-o); from NT:2596 and NT:2961; to lord against, i.e. control, subjugate:
KJV - exercise dominion over (lordship), be lord over, overcome.

Both quoted from Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc

You still have not grasped by usage of the word abuse - nothing near what you are stating.

The 5 fold ministry. Since I am one of them I don't deny their place. But they are gifts for function, not to exercise authority over others as I have previously pointed out.

I did not 'conveniently overlook' the verses about wives. I was looking at the nature of the one who is to be submitted to, a servant not a lord.

A clear authority structure? I and others here have challenged that. That challenge comes from many long hours of study, reading Christian scholars who have dedicated large parts of their lives seeking to better understand what the Bible does teach about women. Those who oppose the views I have presented have never made reference to the existence of such biblical teachers and scholars, let alone point out where their understanding of the original texts, the specific cultural issues being addressed and the logic of their exposition of all relevant scriptures is wrong in some way. That raises big queries in my mind.

Scripture speaks about wisdom and knowledge (or understanding) in combination many times. To oppose an argument without being fully aware of its bases is easy, but not necessarily correct.

And why is it that your ilk throw around ad hominem statements so freely - hardened hearts, feminist influenced etc?

John
NZ

 

[Ih8s8n]

A clear authority structure? I and others here have challenged that. That challenge comes from many long hours of study, reading Christian scholars who have dedicated large parts of their lives seeking to better understand what the Bible does teach about women. Those who oppose the views I have presented have never made reference to the existence of such biblical teachers and scholars, let alone point out where their understanding of the original texts, the specific cultural issues being addressed and the logic of their exposition of all relevant scriptures. That raises big queries in my mind.

Johnnz: Congratulations! You've outdone yourself. Yes, folks, the man who rails against authority has admitted that his basis for such is very much the logical fallacy of, wait for it...











An argument from AUTHORITY or an appeal to AUTHORITY.

Unbelievable.

 

[cubinity]

.

 

[Chaplain David]

Mod Hat On​

Fellow members, stop flaming, goading, baiting, using sarcasm, and belittling each other. If you don't know what our rules for posting are here go to the upper right corner of the toolbar where it says "rules" and read them. Then follow them! Stick with the OP and debate the topic and don't make things personal. If you have any questions about how to do any of this or about the rules, pm me or any moderator and we will be happy to help you understand. Thank you in advance for your immediate cooperation.

Mod Hat On​