RE: Moving on...

RE: Moving on... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

Message

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved I agree, but then tell us how you reconcile both sets of verses using your defintion of setting aside which Martin said nothing of setting aside interpretation but setting aside the scripture itself. I would also ask how one could interpret 1 Timothy 2 and 3 wrongly, it's pretty clear and to the point. Several other possible interpretations for 1 Timothy 2 have been written. The most likely interpretation is that Paul was answering a concern of Timothy's regarding a specific situation involving a woman or women who were teaching false doctrine. Paul is instructing Timothy to encourage them to learn. The reference to the creation order may have been because of the nature of the false doctrine being taught. Another possible interpretation is that Paul is repeating a line from Timothy's initial letter to Paul in verses 2:12-15 which would make those verses the question that Paul is responding to in chapter 3. Paul opens the answer by stating "Here's a trustworthy saying", which would be opposed to the possibly "not trustworthy saying" that women can't teach men or have authority. Chapter 3 then goes on to outline the qualifications for "ANYONE" who want to be a bishop, overseer or deacon. Paul especially points out some specific qualifications for women when he says in verse 11 " Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things." When an "apparent" clear reading of scripture seems to be out of sink with the rest of scripture it's okay to say "I don't know why he wrote it that way." Then you dig deeper for other possible interpretations. Then you compare all of those possibilities with the rest of scripture. What you don't do is write doctrine based on one passage that seems to contradict other scripture especially other scripture written by the same author. Paul commends women in leadership in other places. And, more telling, is the fact that Paul includes specific qualifications for women in outlining the qualifications for anyone who wants to be an overseer in the very next chapter.

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:57:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joint heir If you can agree that there are exceptions then how can you say that there was a rule to begin with? Unless God's rules can be broken....He either says something or He doesn't ....How do we trust in a God that says one thing and does another....? There can't be exceptions if there is no rule. LOL! quote: I believe that the Bible is seemless in it's perfection...and that if verses are appearing to be contradicting or "rules' are being broken...then in my mind it is us and our interpretation of what God is saying that is wrong....and we need to keep exploring until it all fits... I agree that someone needs to keep exploring if they are not satisfied. Obviously prayer is part of that. It has been my experience that most of the time people have not explored the scriptures enough. They get their interpretation second hand from reading someone's book who has a view that they like. That is not the way to study this issue. If someone is going to read a book, they need to read several and from many viewpoints. Now I'm not saying you haven't done that. You may have. But if not, you should. But as far as your line of thinking goes, it's really more in favor of the view I've concluded from scripture. And God deciding to depart from what He normally does is not breaking a rule. It's merely making an exception. There's no contradiction there. There is nothing wrong with making an exception. God broke with the norm (or what the Hebrews thought was the norm) when He brought the Good News to the Gentiles. Yet I do not see any breaking with the norm on women and primary leadership responsibilties. It's not there. With regard to Deborah, you might want to go back and study the time of the Judges. Even if you've already done it, you might want to do it again. That was a very apostate time and talk about not being the norm? Those were awful times -- by comparison to any time in history. Now having said that, it's not unthinkable to me that God could have women pastors in churches. He had to call a woman Judge. IMO, that is a sign that we are in bad times. We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. quote: I don't have all the answers...but I refuse to just accept the standard understanding when it appears to have exceptions and contradictions and seemingly random and illogical application I don't have all the answers either, and I'm never going to act like I do. If you've got something that is convincing from the standpoint of exegesis, hit me with it. I MIGHT change my mind. But right now here's where i am. I have studied this subject ad nauseum, and believe it or not, I'm pretty "liberated," but I do see the rule as men having primarily responsibility for leadership. And the key word there is primary. Women can still have leadership.

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:57:44 PM)
quote: It's important that we all recognize that Paul's concern is more narrowly focused upon the specific gender roles that God himself has designed for humanity. What would those gender roles be?

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:59:29 PM)
quote: What would those gender roles be? [sm=icon_smile_faint.gif]

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved I agree, but then tell us how you reconcile both sets of verses using your defintion of setting aside which Martin said nothing of setting aside interpretation but setting aside the scripture itself. I would also ask how one could interpret 1 Timothy 2 and 3 wrongly, it's pretty clear and to the point. Several other possible interpretations for 1 Timothy 2 have been written. The most likely interpretation is that Paul was answering a concern of Timothy's regarding a specific situation involving a woman or women who were teaching false doctrine. Paul is instructing Timothy to encourage them to learn. The reference to the creation order may have been because of the nature of the false doctrine being taught. Another possible interpretation is that Paul is repeating a line from Timothy's initial letter to Paul in verses 2:12-15 which would make those verses the question that Paul is responding to in chapter 3. Paul opens the answer by stating "Here's a trustworthy saying", which would be opposed to the possibly "not trustworthy saying" that women can't teach men or have authority. Chapter 3 then goes on to outline the qualifications for "ANYONE" who want to be a bishop, overseer or deacon. Paul especially points out some specific qualifications for women when he says in verse 11 " Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things." When an "apparent" clear reading of scripture seems to be out of sink with the rest of scripture it's okay to say "I don't know why he wrote it that way." Then you dig deeper for other possible interpretations. Then you compare all of those possibilities with the rest of scripture. What you don't do is write doctrine based on one passage that seems to contradict other scripture especially other scripture written by the same author. Paul commends women in leadership in other places. And, more telling, is the fact that Paul includes specific qualifications for women in outlining the qualifications for anyone who wants to be an overseer in the very next chapter. Dig deeper, how? By completely rewriting the text? Your interpretation then goes against 1 Peter 2 and 1 Corinthians. As for the rest I think Bzirk said it very well.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:02:56 PM)
quote: "I don't know why he wrote it that way." But I can't say that Laura as I do know why he wrote it that way, it's in line with the rest of scripture that says the same thing.....

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:06:55 PM)
quote: With regard to Deborah, you might want to go back and study the time of the Judges. Even if you've already done it, you might want to do it again. That was a very apostate time and talk about not being the norm? Those were awful times -- by comparison to any time in history. Now having said that, it's not unthinkable to me that God could have women pastors in churches. He had to call a woman Judge. IMO, that is a sign that we are in bad times. We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. 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.

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:09:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved quote: What would those gender roles be? [sm=icon_smile_faint.gif] That doesn't answer the question. Show me in scripture what God laid out as gender roles.

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:10:24 PM)
Has anyone on this thread been led to be a teacher of men in the church or have spiritual authority over men in the church. Please note that I'm not talking about men who are not believers or in secular settings. If so, would you describe the circumstances? Those are sincere questions, and no, I'm not looking to rake you. I am honestly asking about your experience. BTW, this is a question I have asked of many women, and the second question I have asked and discussed with numerous women pastors I have known. I know one now fairly well (as I type this post). She lives two blocks behind me, and I have worked with her on several projects. I know her grown son very well and her daughter and husband as well. I know all the people in her church. I have known several others women pastors. Another one lives about 15 miles down the road, and her husband is a local doctor in this area. We've worked on several porjects as well and had many discussions about various things including this topic. So I'm not looking at women pastors from afar, my friends.

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:14:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre quote: With regard to Deborah, you might want to go back and study the time of the Judges. Even if you've already done it, you might want to do it again. That was a very apostate time and talk about not being the norm? Those were awful times -- by comparison to any time in history. Now having said that, it's not unthinkable to me that God could have women pastors in churches. He had to call a woman Judge. IMO, that is a sign that we are in bad times. We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. 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. I never said He had a law. You said that. I said there was a norm established by what He did, and Paul makes it clear what the norm is that is established. I'll reiterate again, that I do not hold with the interpretation that women can never speak in the assembly or that women can never teach.

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre quote: With regard to Deborah, you might want to go back and study the time of the Judges. Even if you've already done it, you might want to do it again. That was a very apostate time and talk about not being the norm? Those were awful times -- by comparison to any time in history. Now having said that, it's not unthinkable to me that God could have women pastors in churches. He had to call a woman Judge. IMO, that is a sign that we are in bad times. We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. 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. Scripture never says that Paul was instructing Timothy not to let the women teach or have authority over men strictly as a response to a particular situation. .

i_believe -> Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 2:24:54 PM)
quote: If you can agree that there are exceptions then how can you say that there was a rule to begin with? Unless God's rules can be broken....He either says something or He doesn't ....How do we trust in a God that says one thing and does another....? Mat 19:6-9 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart." (7) They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?" (8) He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. (9) I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery." Some things have been allowed that from the beginning have not been so. Jesus corrected many of these. You can not take a historical account of an exception and imply that God wants it to be that way and make it a rule for the future. God even required sacrifices in the OT but said that He had no pleasure in them. He made a better way for us, Christ. He says He desires obedience not sacrifice. Paul clarifies the way things are meant to be in the NT church(es) 1 Tim 2,3, 1 Cor 11, Tit 1,2, 1 Pet 3...

joint heir -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:28:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bzirk quote: ORIGINAL: joint heir If you can agree that there are exceptions then how can you say that there was a rule to begin with? Unless God's rules can be broken....He either says something or He doesn't ....How do we trust in a God that says one thing and does another....? There can't be exceptions if there is no rule. LOL! snort...true that ...but we are talking God here....If He says through His word that it is not permitted for a woman to teach a man.....and then He calls someone to do and it is recorded in the Bible and then commended...imo that is untrustworthy ....If he says through His word that it is not permitted for a woman to have authority and then gives her authrority and expects her to use it ....then that is untrustworthy... God broke with the norm (or what the Hebrews thought was the norm) when He brought the Good News to the Gentiles. Yet I do not see any breaking with the norm on women and primary leadership responsibilties. It's not there. Interesting point....yet we have clear scripture showing how there was never a rule that gentiles were to be brought the news...all the way back to the Abrahamic covenant...I think the key is what was thought to be the norm(as you stated)....which is what I believe we have today....people believing in a norm or what they believe to be a rule that just is not there....at least this is my conclusion....we all have to come to our own Now having said that, it's not unthinkable to me that God could have women pastors in churches. He had to call a woman Judge. IMO, that is a sign that we are in bad times. We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. True, but if you believe this ....it is just not consistent with what is allowed...either it is allowed or not....If it is not allowed then God does not call women....regardless of the state of men....If it is allowed then He does call women and we can not presume to determine the reasons He calls who He does..... I don't have all the answers either, and I'm never going to act like I do. If you've got something that is convincing from the standpoint of exegesis, hit me with it. I MIGHT change my mind. But right now here's where i am. I have studied this subject ad nauseum, and believe it or not, I'm pretty "liberated," but I do see the rule as men having primarily responsibility for leadership. And the key word there is primary. Women can still have leadership. Our positions are probably not all that far off...from what I have read...If you have done the ins and outs of the study and what scripture has to offer ...and what scholars have to offer...then I can give you no more than that....we are all working on the same field of information...I have no claim to greater knowledge...It will probably be a timeless debate such as the others in Christianity...

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 2:32:08 PM)
quote: Scripture never says that Paul was instructing Timothy not to let the women teach or have authority over men strictly as a response to a particular situation. No it doesn't. But, it is a possibility based on the purpose of Paul's letter to Timothy. Which was to encourage him in his fight against false doctrine. 1 Tim 1:3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work�which is by faith. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Paul is addressing a point of false doctrine when he writes about women not having authority because of the creation account considering that no where else is scripture, old testament or new testament, is there any teaching that the creation account sets up men as having authority over women.

i_believe -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 2:41:57 PM)
quote: We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. What happened the first time a woman decided she knew better than what God had told the man? Gen 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you have listened to your wife's voice, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground for your sake. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 1Co 11:1-10 Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. (2) Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. (3) But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. (5) But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. (6) For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For man is not from woman, but woman from man; (9) for neither was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (10) For this cause the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels. What does the Bible say women should do to help men? 1Pe 3:1-7 In like manner, wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; so that, even if any don't obey the Word, they may be won by the behavior of their wives without a word; (2) seeing your pure behavior in fear. (3) Let your beauty be not just the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on fine clothing; (4) but in the hidden person of the heart, in the incorruptible adornment of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God very precious. (5) For this is how the holy women before, who hoped in God also adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: (6) as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children you now are, if you do well, and are not put in fear by any terror. (7) You husbands, in like manner, live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman, as to the weaker vessel, as being also joint heirs of the grace of life; that your prayers may not be hindered. Many have said women are called to Pastor church(es)... it is "my" calling. That does not sound like it would fit the "we are only doing it until the men step up to the plate". You would not need a title to come along side and be a servant. You only need it if you want to be recognized as one being in authority over them. It would seem more biblical to encourage them and pray for them than to start teaching them and usurping authority over them in the church(es).

i_believe -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 2:44:36 PM)
quote: Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Paul is addressing a point of false doctrine when he writes about women not having authority because of the creation account considering that no where else is scripture, old testament or new testament, is there any teaching that the creation account sets up men as having authority over women. Not when he says "as in all the churches... For Adam was fromed first...". He gave the context so we don't have to speculate.

JoToP -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 3:00:50 PM)
quote: This has been mentioned many times. The word for "silent" is not a word that denotes permanent or total silence. It is carries the idea of "hushed". Paul was speaking of disorder in the church. I've also read in many places that theologians do not know what "Law" Paul is referring to as there is no such Old Testament or Jewish law. He may be referring to a Corinthian law. In which case Paul could be admonishing them to follow the law of the land in this regard in order to not bring reproach upon the church there. A. It can easily be shown that the word in Greek for silent means silent. This is not the only time the Greek word is used and in the other instances it is explicit in its meaning. Martin propogated the "hush" idea and he's wrong. Martin doesn't know Greek. B. You're interpretation of "the Law" is pure eisegesis. The Law, with the definite article refers to the whole corpus or bady of the Law. Within it are cases regarding women, particularly the laws regarding a woman's oath and its ratification by husband and father. On top of that Paul is refering to the representation of women in the Penteteuch, which Peter takes up in his epistle. "The Law" under no circumstance refers to Jewish tradition or Greek or Roman Laws. It is improper to interpret the Bible by going outside of the Bible to inferior resource. Such a practice presupposes that the Holy Spirit did not properly inspire Scripture to be a self-sufficient revelation.

joint heir -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 3:09:17 PM)
I enjoy you people[:D]...you are all making me spend way too much time on the computer....[;)] quote: ORIGINAL: i_believe quote: If you can agree that there are exceptions then how can you say that there was a rule to begin with? Unless God's rules can be broken....He either says something or He doesn't ....How do we trust in a God that says one thing and does another....? Mat 19:6-9 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart." (7) They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?" (8) He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. (9) I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery." Excellent point....now let me clarify mine.... I was referring to a rule that God made...and then broke himself...divorce was allowed by Moses for a time...this is very different from God making a rule and then breaking his own....(I clarified in my post to Bzirk) It would be as if God used divorce and called it good....or instructed someone to get a divorce.... If it your contention that 1 Timothy is clarifying a rule or making a new way....then you need to explain whether you believe that Deborah was in sin...as in the example of divorce....or whether she was painting a picture of what was yet to come....the better way.....or whether there was a change for some other reason... Now I will go down this rabbit trail with you.....but I want to point out that the whole of scripture imo teaches that women and men are all sons of God ....and inherit the rights there in....and still we are charged that our gifts are to be used based on faith and grace...and that I still would like to hear what you have to say on the topic of authority that we were discussing....

Ginosko -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 3:12:01 PM)
Laura, Query re: gender roles... It is not unimportant that God represents himself to humanity as our Father. Neither is it unimportant that Jesus is represented as the Son of God. It is equally salient that God created Adam first and then Eve. Eve was created for Adam. She was to be his helper. God intended that Adam be the federal head of the entire human race. You will recall that when Eve was deceived by Satan, God came to Adam. God was in essence holding Adam accountable for Eve's sin. It is not by coincidence that Satan approached Eve first and not Adam with his lies and deception. It is ordained by God that men be the head of their homes as well as the leaders in the church. That God ordained role is at odds with contemporary egalitarian idiology. That is most unfortunate. Scarcely does the slumbering Christian community recognize we are witnessing a social revolution that is determined to erase entirely from the collective memory of the culture the word "Christian", Christian values, the normality of heterosexuality, and any and all role distinctions. There is a determined effort to obliterate this "patriarchal" God of the Bible and drive a wedge between the sexes. That is the meaning of the statement in Genesis that indicates that the woman will want to "rule" over her husband. Before the fall there was no such desire. The woman was happy in her estate to joyfully and willingly accept the spiritual headship and godly leadership of her husband. This dangerous stuff we are quarreling about. Many have been innocently dragged into the fray and find themselves advocating positions that are directly contrary to to the expressed will of God. There are God honoring gender distinctions. We would all do well to know what those distinctions are and to honor them.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 3:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved quote: What would those gender roles be? [sm=icon_smile_faint.gif] That doesn't answer the question. Show me in scripture what God laid out as gender roles. I guess I'm wondering what I and others have been talking about for the past several hundred plus threads? We have answered the question in over 3 hundred plus threads with this discussion and the one before this, so I think my smiley(which isn't smiling) pretty well reflects the question.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 3:25:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre quote: With regard to Deborah, you might want to go back and study the time of the Judges. Even if you've already done it, you might want to do it again. That was a very apostate time and talk about not being the norm? Those were awful times -- by comparison to any time in history. Now having said that, it's not unthinkable to me that God could have women pastors in churches. He had to call a woman Judge. IMO, that is a sign that we are in bad times. We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. 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. Judges 4:9.

laura... -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 3:25:32 PM)
Ginosko While you wax eloquently you still did not answer the question. What scriptural roles does God give to the genders? quote: It is equally salient that God created Adam first and then Eve. Eve was created for Adam. She was to be his helper. She was created to be his "helpmeet". That is not the same as a "helper". quote: God intended that Adam be the federal head of the entire human race. Scripture please. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Together Adam and Eve were the head of the entire human race. quote: You will recall that when Eve was deceived by Satan, God came to Adam. God was in essence holding Adam accountable for Eve's sin. They were BOTH accountable.

joint heir -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 3:26:03 PM)
The wedge was driven between the sexes at the Fall....surely as christian men and women who are filled with the Holy Spirit who are diligent students of the word of God we are working to actually remove that wedge ...to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh Why we as christians are in disagreement one can not say....but what we can say is that we are much closer in our views and united together against the enemy....whose position on this topic is far from any being explained on this thread....

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Equal value different roles... (4/21/2005 3:29:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: i_believe quote: Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Paul is addressing a point of false doctrine when he writes about women not having authority because of the creation account considering that no where else is scripture, old testament or new testament, is there any teaching that the creation account sets up men as having authority over women. Not when he says "as in all the churches... For Adam was fromed first...". He gave the context so we don't have to speculate. Exactly.

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 3:31:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre quote: With regard to Deborah, you might want to go back and study the time of the Judges. Even if you've already done it, you might want to do it again. That was a very apostate time and talk about not being the norm? Those were awful times -- by comparison to any time in history. Now having said that, it's not unthinkable to me that God could have women pastors in churches. He had to call a woman Judge. IMO, that is a sign that we are in bad times. We are in times when the men are sadly, sadly lacking. Just as in the days of Deborah. That is not a slap on women. It is a slap on men. 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. Judges 4:9. Judges 4:9 "Very well," Deborah said, "I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman." So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh, Judges 4:9 has nothing to do with why Deborah was chosen as the Judge of Israel. By this point, Deborah alread was the Judge. The woman whom the Lord handed Sisera over to was Jael not Deborah. quote: I guess I'm wondering what I and others have been talking about for the past several hundred plus threads? There have been many posts alluding to "gender roles". There have been no scriptures stating what those roles are.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI