RE: Moving on...

RE: Moving on... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

Message

joint heir -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 4:37:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: joint heir quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre It may not be unthinkable but scripture never says that God called Deborah to be the Judge of Israel because there weren't any decent men. That is speculation based on a bias against women being in authority over men. I would think that God would have made it quite clear if that was his reasoning. God certainly breaks with the norm. He never breaks his own laws. Therefore, God cannot have a law or rule prohibiting women being in authority over men. Deborah couldn't do anything as far as carrying out God's orders without Barak. He was her hands. That means God puts limitations on how far a woman can go in her "authority". She couldn't lead an army into battle. the point is that she had authority....everyone has limits to their authority...male or female... That's not the point. Her authority was not really an authority. She was a mouthpiece for God. She told Barak and Barak carried it out. She was a prophetess. There were 14 other Judges besides her and all the others were men. I don't see how you can have much more authority than being a mouthpiece for God.

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 4:42:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: joint heir quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre It may not be unthinkable but scripture never says that God called Deborah to be the Judge of Israel because there weren't any decent men. That is speculation based on a bias against women being in authority over men. I would think that God would have made it quite clear if that was his reasoning. God certainly breaks with the norm. He never breaks his own laws. Therefore, God cannot have a law or rule prohibiting women being in authority over men. Deborah couldn't do anything as far as carrying out God's orders without Barak. He was her hands. That means God puts limitations on how far a woman can go in her "authority". She couldn't lead an army into battle. the point is that she had authority....everyone has limits to their authority...male or female... That's not the point. Her authority was not really an authority. She was a mouthpiece for God. She told Barak and Barak carried it out. She was a prophetess. There were 14 other Judges besides her and all the others were men. Back up. With that logic, the same could be said of Samuel and many other prophets. There was authority in being a "mouth piece" for God. No question. So the woman did have authority. Let's not denigrate that. The point is not that she had authority. The point is that she is THE ONLY example out of thousands of years of history of our Judeo Christian heritage. I'll say it again. If the Lord did something once, He can certainly do it again, but is that the way it's intended to be? Divorce is not the way it's intended to be either, but God made provisions for that. Polygamy was not the way it was intended to be, but God made provisions for that too. That is why I don't believe it's unthinkable or necessarily out of God's will for a church to have a woman pastor. Do I think it's what God intends to happen? No. Not according to the pattern that was set right from the creation. Oh, btw, me saying that does not mean that I'm embracing all the women who are pastors. Far from it.

joint heir -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 4:53:27 PM)
so if we have a case where a woman has authority (spiritual in nature...and men should come under that authority of their own volition...because it is of God) and then we have a verse that says that really women are not supposed to have this type of authority.... we have to reconcile it.... there are several options. 1. Deborah really did not have the authority that it appears that she had 2. Our understanding of 1 Tim is flawed. 3. God changed the rules post Deborah and women today are not allowed the authority that she was.. 4. God set out a rule an intentionally broke that rule... 5. The rule is really not a rule but instead a vague principle...that at any time God can make exceptions to.... any of these can be argued....some more effectively than others....some lead to greater problems of scripture reconciliation than others....

joint heir -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 4:55:25 PM)
and in regard to the point that she is the ONLY example...well how many examples does one need to be convinced that their understanding of a verse or doctrine as a whole is flawed?

Jhud -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 4:59:19 PM)
I don't know about you JoTop, but I vote we let Lisa handle this thread from now on. It's much more relaxing just to watch. [sm=icon_smile_idea.gif]

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:01:20 PM)
quote: It indicates to me that Adam recognized that they were "one flesh". They were in unity. Together they subdued the earth. They were co-rulers. If that were the case God would have called on both Adam and Eve and both would have answered. That however was not the case. God called Adam and Adam alone answered.

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 5:04:03 PM)
Deborah isn't the only example. In the Old Testament there are also Miriam and Huldah. There are others in the New Testament.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:05:53 PM)
Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 1Ti 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1Ti 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. Co 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 1Co 14:35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 1Co 14:36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? Co 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. 1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 1Co 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. 1Co 11:17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.

laura... -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:06:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved quote: It indicates to me that Adam recognized that they were "one flesh". They were in unity. Together they subdued the earth. They were co-rulers. If that were the case God would have called on both Adam and Eve and both would have answered. That however was not the case. God called Adam and Adam alone answered. I don't think I will base doctrine on who God called out to first. God called Adam. They both were present. They both received the consequences of their sin.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 5:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre Deborah isn't the only example. In the Old Testament there are also Miriam and Huldah. There are others in the New Testament. Which we have already discussed.[sm=smile-l.gif]

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:14:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved quote: It indicates to me that Adam recognized that they were "one flesh". They were in unity. Together they subdued the earth. They were co-rulers. If that were the case God would have called on both Adam and Eve and both would have answered. That however was not the case. God called Adam and Adam alone answered. I don't think I will base doctrine on who God called out to first. God called Adam. They both were present. They both received the consequences of their sin. I will and I'll tell you why because everything that God does.....every little thing is for a reason and should be paid attention to. God isn't like us to do something for no reason. It all means something.

Ginosko -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:30:56 PM)
Sadie, add to that the fact that when both Adam and Eve fell into sin, God called out to Adam first. Gen 1:9 Yes, indeed. That is highly significant. It very strongly suggests that God was holding Adam accountable for the sin that both he and his wife had committed. Perhaps of equal interest is the fact that the sepent approached Eve and not Adam first. It looks like the serpent too was avoiding the leadership protocol established by God by going to Eve where he might enjoy greater success. He did and Adam was held accountable as were we all. I notice that the New Testament points out that because of Adam's sin we are all guilty. Curious, that!

p31woman -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:35:25 PM)
Hmm, I gotta get me one of those husbands, then, so I don't have to be accountable for my own sin...

Coheir -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ginosko Coheir, Your argument is one commony espoused by egalitarians. It is one that lacks foundation, however. No, yours is the argument that lacks foundation, as I shall demonstrate momentarily. quote: If you will recall God first instructed Adam to seek his "helpmeet" among the animals but none suitable was found there. I think you are reading too much into that verse. Nowhere does God instruct Adam to seek his helpmeet among the animals. (Ewwww! Let's not go there!) See Gen 2:20. God simply brings them before Adam to see what he would name them. This is instructive because this demonstrates to Adam what it is he lacks that the animals have - a counterpart. quote: None was fit for Adam. So, God made Eve FROM man. Okay, so Adam has now got someone who is fit for him, one who shares his human nature, and one who is also made in the image of God. They're of equal value and worth before God. Agreed. quote: But we see that it was Adam who was given a helper this in the sense that Eve was to be a loyal and suitable assistant in tending the affairs of the garden. Shem was not intended to be a rival but a partner. Yes. A partner. Not a subordinate. Partner/leader are oxymorons. quote: Remember, it was Eve who was created for Adam- not Adam for Eve. In this there is no offense. Agreed. quote: Adam is the head ... and which scripture verse says, that, if you please? quote: ... Eve is the assistant. Submission to headship does not suggest or mean inequality. That's a concept with which egalitarians struggle. This is where your argument collapses. Nowhere is Adam assigned the role of head or leader by God in the creation account. You assume it's there, you read that into it, but it is not. You make a huge leap by thinking that because Eve was created for Adam, that automatically makes him the leader and her the subordinate. But the scripture neither says nor implies that. Creation order and authority are two entirely separate issues. As we've discussed, the "ezer kenegdo" description (today translated "suitable helper") makes it clear that she is not subordinate. If ezer = helper/rescuer, and is used to describe God 20 out of 21 times (i.e, the helper is not "led by" or "headed by" the helpee) and if kenegdo = face to face, corresponding to, equal to and if the woman = bone of man's bone, flesh of man's flesh (oneness, unity, likeness, intimacy) how the dickens do you get the idea that just because the woman was created for the man that he is the leader? The very language and meaning of "ezer kenegdo" contradicts that notion. How do you reconcile the meaning of "ezer kenegdo" and the concept of "headship"? They both can't be true at the same time.

Coheir -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ginosko Sadie, add to that the fact that when both Adam and Eve fell into sin, God called out to Adam first. Gen 1:9 Yes, indeed. That is highly significant. It very strongly suggests that God was holding Adam accountable for the sin that both he and his wife had committed. Yet God held both Ananais and Sapphira equally accountable in the NT. So I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

bzirk -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:38:36 PM)
As for Miriam, t here is not Biblical prooftext that she had authority over men. It's not there. She's not a valid reference.

bzirk -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coheir quote: ORIGINAL: Ginosko Sadie, add to that the fact that when both Adam and Eve fell into sin, God called out to Adam first. Gen 1:9 Yes, indeed. That is highly significant. It very strongly suggests that God was holding Adam accountable for the sin that both he and his wife had committed. Yet God held both Ananais and Sapphira equally accountable in the NT. So I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The Lord also held Eve accountable in the fall as well as Adam. That's not the point.

harmonmsp -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:40:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved I will and I'll tell you why because everything that God does.....every little thing is for a reason and should be paid attention to. God isn't like us to do something for no reason. It all means something. Perhaps I'll ruffle a few of my fellow Reformers feathers with this, but I am not sure where I fall (ha-ha) with this issue. Couldn't it be the case that Adam was called for a different reason than you're thinking? Because God did speak to Eve in due course. He knew the level of responsibilty and He addressed it from the order that such responsibility was broken. What if the problem is that Adam was supposed to make sure Eve didn't take it and he failed? That would completely flip the passage in 1 Timothy on its head in the 'conservative' understanding. What's the solution to that problem, but addressing them as equal the next go-round?

Ginosko -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:44:13 PM)
coheir, Yes. A partner. Not a subordinate. Question... Was Jesus subordinate to the Father? Was Jesus not equal with the Father? Is there some inherrent inequality about God assigning to his creations gender roles?

Ginosko -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:51:30 PM)
coheir, And Adam called his wife�s name Eve.... Acording to Old Testament culture, the one who names another is the one who exercises authority over the one named.

Coheir -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ginosko coheir, Yes. A partner. Not a subordinate. Question... Was Jesus subordinate to the Father? Was Jesus not equal with the Father? Is there some inherrent inequality about God assigning to his creations gender roles? Jesus was subordinate to the Father temporally, not eternally, to accomplish a specific task -- salvation. And as the Incarnation, Phil 2:6 says he "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." But the Trinity and humanity are two very different things. I don't know that you can push the parallels too far. I believe that God can assign whatever roles to the genders he pleases ... but you and I obviously differ as to how sharply those roles differ. Now, I'd sure appreciate if you'd address the questions I've asked below. Perhaps by slicing this argument into smaller pieces, we can make a little more progress as to where each of us are coming from. I've put into boldface what I believe is the most pertinent question here. quote: If ezer = helper/rescuer, and is used to describe God 20 out of 21 times (i.e, the helper is not "led by" or "headed by" the helpee) and if kenegdo = face to face, corresponding to, equal to and if the woman = bone of man's bone, flesh of man's flesh (oneness, unity, likeness, intimacy) how the dickens do you get the idea that just because the woman was created for the man that he is the leader? The very language and meaning of "ezer kenegdo" contradicts that notion. How do you reconcile the meaning of "ezer kenegdo" and the concept of "headship"? They both can't be true at the same time.

Coheir -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 5:57:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ginosko coheir, And Adam called his wife�s name Eve.... Acording to Old Testament culture, the one who names another is the one who exercises authority over the one named. That may well be so ... I'm inclined to agree with this, although I haven't studied it thoroughly. But you will note that Adam did not name her Eve until after the Fall. It was after the fall that Patriarchy and gender-based rule was ushered in, as God predicted when he told Eve "he shall rule over you." This was not God's original design.

Ginosko -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 6:01:29 PM)
coheir, Yet God held both Ananais and Sapphira equally accountable in the NT. The federal headship of Adam and the imputation of sin to the entire human race are not comparable to the sins of Ananias and Saphira. Each was held individually accountable but remember it was Adam to whom God spoke first following their sin. Why do you think that was? Why didn't he call them both to account at the same time. That's the way my dad it when my twin and I messed up. What do you think?

bzirk -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 6:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coheir quote: ORIGINAL: Ginosko None was fit for Adam. So, God made Eve FROM man. Okay, so Adam has now got someone who is fit for him, one who shares his human nature, and one who is also made in the image of God. They're of equal value and worth before God. Agreed. quote: But we see that it was Adam who was given a helper this in the sense that Eve was to be a loyal and suitable assistant in tending the affairs of the garden. Shem was not intended to be a rival but a partner. Yes. A partner. Not a subordinate. Partner/leader are oxymorons. Obviously, you've had not truck with law firms. LOL!! I'm just teasing you. We need a little levity right about now. But my point is serious. You can have partners where one is a leader. quote: quote: Remember, it was Eve who was created for Adam- not Adam for Eve. In this there is no offense. Agreed. quote: Adam is the head ... and which scripture verse says, that, if you please? IN which scripture verse is the trinity? [8D] Not all concepts in scripture are stated directly in each passage. Sound interpretation requires that the whole picture be examined, i.e., the whole of scripture be examined. quote: quote: ... Eve is the assistant. Submission to headship does not suggest or mean inequality. That's a concept with which egalitarians struggle. This is where your argument collapses. Nowhere is Adam assigned the role of head or leader by God in the creation account. You assume it's there, you read that into it, but it is not. You make a huge leap by thinking that because Eve was created for Adam, that automatically makes him the leader and her the subordinate. But the scripture neither says nor implies that. Creation order and authority are two entirely separate issues. As we've discussed, the "ezer kenegdo" description (today translated "suitable helper") makes it clear that she is not subordinate. If ezer = helper/rescuer, and is used to describe God 20 out of 21 times (i.e, the helper is not "led by" or "headed by" the helpee) and if kenegdo = face to face, corresponding to, equal to and if the woman = bone of man's bone, flesh of man's flesh (oneness, unity, likeness, intimacy) how the dickens do you get the idea that just because the woman was created for the man that he is the leader? The very language and meaning of "ezer kenegdo" contradicts that notion. I say this with the utmost respect for you. I know you are really weighing and have weighed this subject. So I do not mean to belittle or demean that in any way whatsoever. It's good that we're all discussing this issue. Apparently, it hasn't been discussed enough. LOL!! I'm serious. That laugh just popped out, because we are a people who have to thrash things out. Always have been that way and who knows when we'll stop. God DID put it in us to seek truth. I assume that is why we thrash things out, and what everyone here is working towards attaining. Okay, that's enough preface to my remarks. Here's what I was going to say. The order is referred to in the NT more than once. That should clear up any questions someone has about the pattern set throughout scripture. The scriptures I'm referring to have already been cited in this thread. We can do it again if necessary but I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence. quote: How do you reconcile the meaning of "ezer kenegdo" and the concept of "headship"? They both can't be true at the same time. How in the world can we reconcile one God with the fact that there is a Father and a Son, and the Son is equally God yet in submission to the Father? With God all things are possible. We get into trouble when we put too much of our fleshly logic on this. Yes, the Lord uses our heads to teach us, but these are things of the Spirit. It is an understanding in the Spirit to understand how a wife can be equal yet not be exactly the same. This is one reason the fall screwed things up. We no longer fully understand that synergy with men and women because although we are not natural people but spiritual people, we still have the flesh to contend with. That is why submission is a point of faith IMO. No, I don't think men or husbands are intermediaries. But I do think we have to trust the Lord regarding their leadership/headship.

Coheir -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 6:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ginosko coheir, Yet God held both Ananais and Sapphira equally accountable in the NT. The federal headship of Adam and the imputation of sin to the entire human race are not comparable to the sins of Ananias and Saphira. Each was held individually accountable but remember it was Adam to whom God spoke first following their sin. Why do you think that was? Why didn't he call them both to account at the same time. That's the way my dad it when my twin and I messed up. What do you think? I think perhaps you're avoiding my question. [&:] Here it is again, so you don't have to scroll up: quote: If ezer = helper/rescuer, and is used to describe God 20 out of 21 times (i.e, the helper is not "led by" or "headed by" the helpee) and if kenegdo = face to face, corresponding to, equal to and if the woman = bone of man's bone, flesh of man's flesh (oneness, unity, likeness, intimacy) how the dickens do you get the idea that just because the woman was created for the man that he is the leader? The very language and meaning of "ezer kenegdo" contradicts that notion. How do you reconcile the meaning of "ezer kenegdo" and the concept of "headship"? They both can't be true at the same time.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI