Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Women in Authority - scripturally defensible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    It can be readily apparent to an outsider walking in, but to someone who was a long term member of a congregation where heresy is introduced by slow degrees, it can easily slip in under the radar. The whole "certain persons have slipped in among you unnoticed" deal.
    Fair enough - though that would usually happen, I would think, with a change in leadership, which is why it's important (to me) to have ONE PERSON responsible for the overall spiritual direction of the Church. If HE (or she) is corrupt, the rest of the organization doesn't stand a chance.

    Nah! the local Baptists are used to my quirks.
    Just remember - where there are 3 Baptists, there are at least 4 opinions!

    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

      Fair enough - though that would usually happen, I would think, with a change in leadership, which is why it's important (to me) to have ONE PERSON responsible for the overall spiritual direction of the Church. If HE (or she) is corrupt, the rest of the organization doesn't stand a chance.



      Just remember - where there are 3 Baptists, there are at least 4 opinions!
      Not so much a change of, I think, as a change in. A matter of success going to the head. Also an increasingly progressive church: it reached the point where no-one was permitted to declare that anything was actually a sin.
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Not so much a change of, I think, as a change in. A matter of success going to the head. Also an increasingly progressive church: it reached the point where no-one was permitted to declare that anything was actually a sin.
        This is why I think that even the lead pastor is subject to the "Church Discipline" of Matthew 18 - that he is accountable to the people. And if there's a problem (perceived or actual) then somebody in the congregation should go to him one-on-one, just like Jesus said, and try to resolve the problem.

        I also feel compelled to emphasize that the "Church Discipline" section is NOT about "kicking people out", but about restoring unity.

        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          This is why I think that even the lead pastor is subject to the "Church Discipline" of Matthew 18 - that he is accountable to the people. And if there's a problem (perceived or actual) then somebody in the congregation should go to him one-on-one, just like Jesus said, and try to resolve the problem.

          I also feel compelled to emphasize that the "Church Discipline" section is NOT about "kicking people out", but about restoring unity.
          Quite so, on all counts. In the circumstances that I described, the requirements were more than fully met.

          The "kicking out" bit is to be reserved for "last resort," and a matter for the congregation to decide, if I interpret the rules correctly.
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

            Kinda, sure!



            Scripture is silent on LOTS of things.



            Fact is, we live in "the fallen world", and in "the fallen world", we still have NT teaching on the husband being the head of the home.
            Dude... Did you even read that page? A bunch of the quotes actually work *against* your position, and a bunch of others are completely irrelevant.

            I don't expect this to persuade committed complementarians, but for those interested, here Phil Payne gives a good one-page presentation of the case for egalitarianism, emphasizing context, vocabulary, and grammar.

            Also, to avoid falling into "argument by Web link," I will **briefly** address several of the passages normally marshaled in favor of hierarchy:

            >> Eph. 5:22 -- In Greek, the word "submit" is not actually present in this verse. It carries over from v. 21, which indicates wife-to-husband submission is not unilateral, but is a specific example of the mutual submitting expected of all believers, including husbands to wives. If the submission were unilateral, it would in effect place wives at lower status than slaves, because 6:9 of the same context shows that the master -- who is the same person as the husband -- is supposed to treat slaves "the same way" they are to treat him. "Head" in Greek does not necessarily indicate leadership, and the context suggests instead the meaning of "source," a common concept in Greek.

            >> Col. 3:18 -- This one does indeed support unilateral submission by wives. And granted, it is usually preferable to let each Biblical passage speak for itself unless a clear inconsistency arises with other passages. But in this case, the fact that there is a strikingly similar but more extensive and developed passage written by the same author at the same time to a sister church in the same region argues for using the passage in Ephesians as a commentary to clarify the passage in Colossians.

            >> 1 Cor. 11:2-16 -- The overall sense shows mutuality, not hierarchy. "Head" seems to be used more in the sense of "source." The word, "authority" does occur, and it applies to the *woman* having authority (over her own head).

            >> 1 Pet. 3:1 -- This one is often neglected in egalitarian literature, since the focus is often so heavily on Paul. The context is important. The wife's submission is immediately explained as being for the purpose of winning over her infidel husband. The whole section is a context of bearing up under unjust treatment and behaving in a way that is a testimony to outsiders, and that is consistent with their "institutions" (2:13).

            >> Tit. 2:5 -- This one also is generally ignored, possibly due to its brevity. As in 1 Pet. above, it is obvious that the reason for wifely submitting is to avoid being "reviled" by outsiders. In both cases, this indicates a voluntary ceding of Christian liberty and equality for the sake of being winsome to outsiders.

            >> 1 Tim. 5:14 -- This one is fun. Paul literally encourages young remarried widows to be "household despots."

            >> 1 Tim. 2:11-14 -- Prima facie at least, this one has little to do with the "household." However, given that churches commonly met in homes, it could be relevant. Egalitarians dispute or question --

            --------------- the translation of "hesuchia" as "silence" in versions like the NKJV (v. 11)
            --------------- the idea that "gune" means "woman" as opposed to "wife"
            --------------- the idea that it refers to all women everywhere for all time, or perhaps something as limited as one particular woman (hence the change from plural to singular after v. 10)
            --------------- based on the grammatical form of the verb, the idea that the ensuing instruction is intended to be ongoing or time-limited (v. 12)
            --------------- the translation of "authenteo" as "exercise authority," as opposed to "independently assume authority" or "dominate." (v. 12)
            --------------- the separation of "didasko" and "authenteo" into two separate activities, rather than joined by "oude" into a single activity (v. 12)
            --------------- the translation of "hesuchia" as "silence" in versions like the NKJV (v. 12)
            --------------- the idea that vv. 13-14 are intended to "universalize" the prohibition, rather than to refute some of the false teaching of the women (or woman)
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Nationalist.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

              >> Eph. 5:22 -- In Greek, the word "submit" is not actually present in this verse. It carries over from v. 21, which indicates wife-to-husband submission is not unilateral, but is a specific example of the mutual submitting expected of all believers, including husbands to wives. If the submission were unilateral, it would in effect place wives at lower status than slaves, because 6:9 of the same context shows that the master -- who is the same person as the husband -- is supposed to treat slaves "the same way" they are to treat him. "Head" in Greek does not necessarily indicate leadership, and the context suggests instead the meaning of "source," a common concept in Greek.
              Yup. I had missed the absence of the express "submit," but even without that detail, 21 and 22 are clearly linked.

              >> Col. 3:18 -- This one does indeed support unilateral submission by wives. And granted, it is usually preferable to let each Biblical passage speak for itself unless a clear inconsistency arises with other passages. But in this case, the fact that there is a strikingly similar but more extensive and developed passage written by the same author at the same time to a sister church in the same region argues for using the passage in Ephesians as a commentary to clarify the passage in Colossians.
              It is necessary to acknowledge that no verse ever stands alone. Far too many one-verse precepts are possible when other passages addressing the same and similar issues are ignored, and taking a single verse as definitive all too often results in the idea that the Bible contradicts itself when an alternative single verse is considered definitive. That said, a proof text that suitably summarises a topic is valid.

              >> 1 Cor. 11:2-16 -- The overall sense shows mutuality, not hierarchy. "Head" seems to be used more in the sense of "source." The word, "authority" does occur, and it applies to the *woman* having authority (over her own head).
              Not to mention - it is not Paul's argument, and it details issues raised in support of the contention that women are to have their heads covered - the topic is not hierarchy and subordination: there is neither affirmation nor denial that the arguments are valid. Paul delivers judgement - the supporting arguments are irrelevant : the woman's (long) hair is covering enough. Neither Paul nor the congregations of God have any other teaching.

              >> 1 Pet. 3:1 -- This one is often neglected in egalitarian literature, since the focus is often so heavily on Paul. The context is important. The wife's submission is immediately explained as being for the purpose of winning over her infidel husband. The whole section is a context of bearing up under unjust treatment and behaving in a way that is a testimony to outsiders, and that is consistent with their "institutions" (2:13).
              Yup, υποτασσομεναι is telling the wives to "get subordinated" or to "subordinate themselves" to husbands for the sake of the husbands. Clearly not a declaration that subordination is a necessarily proper or natural circumstance. And self subordination is a strong theme through scripture.

              >> 1 Tim. 2:11-14 -- Prima facie at least, this one has little to do with the "household." However, given that churches commonly met in homes, it could be relevant. Egalitarians dispute or question --

              --------------- the translation of "hesuchia" as "silence" in versions like the NKJV (v. 11)
              --------------- the idea that "gune" means "woman" as opposed to "wife"
              --------------- the idea that it refers to all women everywhere for all time, or perhaps something as limited as one particular woman (hence the change from plural to singular after v. 10)
              --------------- based on the grammatical form of the verb, the idea that the ensuing instruction is intended to be ongoing or time-limited (v. 12)
              --------------- the translation of "authenteo" as "exercise authority," as opposed to "independently assume authority" or "dominate." (v. 12)
              --------------- the separation of "didasko" and "authenteo" into two separate activities, rather than joined by "oude" into a single activity (v. 12)
              --------------- the translation of "hesuchia" as "silence" in versions like the NKJV (v. 12)
              --------------- the idea that vv. 13-14 are intended to "universalize" the prohibition, rather than to refute some of the false teaching of the women (or woman)
              On the basis of a quick peruse, some parts can be questioned - "working on it."


              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                Dude...
                Yes, Dudette?

                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Like I said, I'm an old fart, and will soon be going the way of the dinosaurs. I know there's a clamor for 'equality', and the world is rushing headlong into that in spite of biblical precedent for leadership in the Church.

                  When God created humankind, he made man first.
                  When He designated an agent of Redemption, it was His own Son.
                  When He commissioned leaders, it was clearly men - Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joshua, Elijah...
                  When Jesus called "the Twelve", they were all men.
                  When the New Testament was written, it was all men who were utilized.
                  When Jesus likens the family to the Kingdom, it's the "father" in the family likened to the Father in Glory.
                  When Jesus commands man to love his wife, it's likened to Christ who loved the Church and gave His life for her.
                  The Seven Letters to the Churches were not written to committees or collectives - they were written to the leaders, one at each Church.

                  In order for Egalitarianism to be supported, you have to dig deep and look at every possible alternative explanation or translation or possibility.

                  The whole rest of the world can do what they wish, but our Church seems to be working just fine with a man, feeble though he may be, at the helm under Christ as Lord.

                  There are, in this world, PLENTY of places for women to be pastors or priests or leaders or chief executives or even heads of nations.

                  As my Mom used to say, "just because they're doing it doesn't mean you have to".


                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                    The whole rest of the world can do what they wish, but our Church seems to be working just fine with a man, feeble though he may be, at the helm under Christ as Lord.
                    If it aint broke, don't fix it - and as I observed earlier, neither group has any ground to declare the other's procedure incorrect.



                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      If it aint broke, don't fix it - and as I observed earlier, neither group has any ground to declare the other's procedure incorrect.
                      Well, I think it's more of "I can believe your position is incorrect, but you're certainly free to pursue that incorrectness". As for me and my congregation...

                      I appreciate that "the case" has been presented for "the other side", but I fail to see any solid reason to abandon the tried and true.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        >> 1 Tim. 2:11-14

                        --------------- the translation of "hesuchia" as "silence" in versions like the NKJV (v. 11)
                        “Silence” is not an unreasonable translation, (cf Acts 22:2) – though “saying nothing” would be. The sentence topic stipulates “learn in silence” and submission, so (questioning, or at least) answering questions would not be the aim of the instruction: noisy disruptiveness would be. Notable here is that this instruction is directed toward women – men are not in the picture. To assume that male “students” would not be subject to the same restrictions is not tenable. This makes likely, an assessment that particular(ly) disruptive women are the target of the instruction.

                        --------------- the idea that "gune" means "woman" as opposed to "wife"
                        The woman’s clothing is not to be ostentatious, adornment is to be good works rather than costly clothing and accessories. That instruction logically concerns women generally. Context doesn’t lend itself to interpreting γυνη as “wife” in this pericope.

                        --------------- the idea that it refers to all women everywhere for all time, or perhaps something as limited as one particular woman (hence the change from plural to singular after v. 10)
                        Change from plural to singular is appropriate: “the/a woman” as a generic reference rather than an individual reference.

                        --------------- based on the grammatical form of the verb, the idea that the ensuing instruction is intended to be ongoing or time-limited (v. 12)
                        Similar instructions would be appropriate anywhen and anywhere the circumstances leading to issuing them might occur. The specific breaks to general at the end of verse 11: verse 12 has an “introductory” but. The word is δε, so it isn’t the first word in the clause.


                        --------------- the translation of "authenteo" as "exercise authority," as opposed to "independently assume authority" or "dominate." (v. 12)
                        Even Mickelson’s dictionary provides “to dominate” as the translation for “authentein” – so the objection is sustained. (If any lexicon can be expected to preserve traditional interpretations, right or wrong, it is Mickelson’s.)
                        --------------- the separation of "didasko" and "authenteo" into two separate activities, rather than joined by "oude" into a single activity (v. 12)

                        γυναικι δε διδασκειν but women to teach ουκ επιτρεπω I do not permit ουδε neither αυθεντειν ανδρος to dominate the man αλλ but ειναι εν ησυχια to be in peace. “I do not permit” stands between “to teach” and “to dominate:” even “oude” alone would declare two distinct actions, the intervening “I do not permit” would not be placed so as to divide a single koto.


                        --------------- the translation of "hesuchia" as "silence" in versions like the NKJV (v. 12)
                        “keep the peace” would be an adequate interpretation, true enough.

                        --------------- the idea that vv. 13-14 are intended to "universalize" the prohibition, rather than to refute some of the false teaching of the women (or woman)
                        Verse 13 and 14 are related topics with a shared subject, but they are not by any means the same topic.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 07-01-2021, 02:39 PM.
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-20-2021, 08:19 AM
                        14 responses
                        63 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Cow Poke  
                        Started by NorrinRadd, 09-07-2021, 04:03 AM
                        12 responses
                        62 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post tabibito  
                        Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-03-2021, 10:54 AM
                        21 responses
                        144 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post KingsGambit  
                        Started by Cow Poke, 08-20-2021, 10:14 AM
                        27 responses
                        146 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post Cow Poke  
                        Started by Thoughtful Monk, 08-05-2021, 02:19 PM
                        63 responses
                        298 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post tabibito  
                        Working...
                        X