Women's Role

[Evangelical]

I have already explained my use of the term "original plan" that I spoke from our perspective in time, and clarified my statement here:


It all sounds very much like an afterthought from our perspective. Of course God being all-knowing , had a plan all along.

I did not mean the term "original" to mean from the start of eternity.

This seems to have been understood by countmeworthy.

There are other matters in which we may say were not in God's original plan but of course were in His plan all along. For example eating animals and sin were not in God's original plan.

Some took issue with my statement that "God realized" man needed a woman.

This idea of "God realizing" is found in popular Christian literature.

In the book "Party of Two: Lessons for Staying in Step in Dating, Marriage, and Family Life By Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, page 75" it says:

"Soon after this great creative miracle, God realized "it was not good for man to be alone" "

The Creation account of Genesis does not sound like a God who had it all figured out beforehand.

These are really matters touching God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.

There are related questions around sin and the fall of man, whether this was planned all along for mankind to sin, or whether God expected mankind to resist Satan's temptation in the Garden.

Another Creation fact that points to God's "afterthought" concerning woman is that woman was not created from dust originally as a new species like Adam and the animals but was created as a version of man, being taken out of Adam's side.

[Evangelical]

OBW has said that "God allowed Adam to see his lack":

Your version is much less plausible than the Sunday School version. And much less in sync with the scripture. At least the Sunday School version acknowledges an all-knowing God who allowed Adam to see his lack rather than just push it on him. Your version makes God into a half-baked buffoon who has to quickly take action to cover up his mistake.

But does the bible say that? No. The Bible in Genesis 2:18 says that it was God who realized Adam needed a wife. It says nothing about "God allowing Adam to realize".

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

In Genesis 1:31 God said "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. "

Yet in Genesis 2:18 God said "it is not good that..."

This indicates that in the creation story, God realized something was missing from His creation plan. God, not Adam. .

I would not claim that "God is a half-baked buffoon", but simply accept what the Bible says.

It was God who saw Adam's need. The bible mentions nothing about God making Adam realize his need, or Adam asking God for a wife.

Matt 6:8 your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But does the bible say that? No. The Bible in Genesis 2:18 says that it was God who realized Adam needed a wife. It says nothing about "God allowing Adam to realize".

And if every word was designed to be a historical account (as we view history) of the creation, using only accurate descriptions of the events as they occurred, then you could come to all kinds of conclusions about the creation.

But if it was designed to provide a Cliff Notes overview of a lengthy and protracted process, heavily relying on metaphor, it is possible that the details are not very meaningful in a 21st century history, but very meaningful in covering a process that is not detailed.

In other words, the more you try to make detailed findings in the account v understand the overarching principles in the metaphors, the more you will wander off into a field with the cows.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And if every word was designed to be a historical account (as we view history) of the creation, using only accurate descriptions of the events as they occurred, then you could come to all kinds of conclusions about the creation.

But if it was designed to provide a Cliff Notes overview of a lengthy and protracted process, heavily relying on metaphor, it is possible that the details are not very meaningful in a 21st century history, but very meaningful in covering a process that is not detailed.

In other words, the more you try to make detailed findings in the account v understand the overarching principles in the metaphors, the more you will wander off into a field with the cows.

Thats why I stick to the facts regarding the order of creation. Men first..women second. As Paul said. The fact he appeals to the creation order for his limitations on women tells us that this reading of Genesis is right. Men are preferred to women in leadership because Adam was created first and Adam was not deceived.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thats why I stick to the facts regarding the order of creation. Men first..women second. As Paul said. The fact he appeals to the creation order for his limitations on women tells us that this reading of Genesis is right. Men are preferred to women in leadership because Adam was created first and Adam was not deceived.

Adam was not deceived...that means he sinned willfully. He knew what he was doing was sin and did it anyway.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some took issue with my statement that "God realized" man needed a woman.

This idea of "God realizing" is found in popular Christian literature.

In the book "Party of Two: Lessons for Staying in Step in Dating, Marriage, and Family Life By Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, page 75" it says:
"Soon after this great creative miracle, God realized "it was not good for man to be alone"

I really gave this some thought and wonder if what God was saying was more like He realized ADAM was lonely and that Adam felt he was missing a counterpart. After all, the animals were both male and female to my knowledge. I seriously doubt they were all male! He saw the companionship of the male elephant with the female elephant, the male giraffe with the female giraffe.. and thus could it be he realized he did not have a counterpart like they did? So the realization from God was that Adam recognized and realized he did not have a mate. Just saying...

The Creation account of Genesis does not sound like a God who had it all figured out beforehand.

In my recent studies on God the Father, I discovered and 'realized' God the Father comes up with the ideas. I explain this and more in my blog.

So you could possibly be correct here Mr E.

Shocking to the readers eh? LOL

There are related questions around sin and the fall of man, whether this was planned all along for mankind to sin, or whether God expected mankind to resist Satan's temptation in the Garden.

I have also done on in depth study on this subject matter. Maybe at some point I will write a blog on my findings. Not going to do so unless I am led by the Spirit though.

Another Creation fact that points to God's "afterthought" concerning woman is that woman was not created from dust originally as a new species like Adam and the animals but was created as a version of man, being taken out of Adam's side.

Now this I disagree with. God, I truly believe knew exactly when the woman was going to be taken out of the man and why He did it that way. I don't think He has revealed it to us but He knew He was going to take the woman out of the side of the man.

PEACE OUT EVERYONE! Sooner or later, He is going to gather all His saints together unto Himself. This and this is going to turn into and

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Now this I disagree with. God, I truly believe knew exactly when the woman was going to be taken out of the man and why He did it that way. I don't think He has revealed it to us but He knew He was going to take the woman out of the side of the man.

PEACE OUT EVERYONE! Sooner or later, He is going to gather all His saints together unto Himself. This and this is going to turn into and

I agree. I don't know why the sentence I wrote came out like that, but I meant "afterthought" in quotations indicating it was not an afterthought but in God's plan.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

In my recent studies on God the Father, I discovered and 'realized' God the Father comes up with the ideas. I explain this and more in my blog.

He is the reason for our existence and purpose for everything. "God is the source".

[Evangelical]

“To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order. To an extent, a woman’s leadership or influence may be personal and non-directive or directive and non-personal, but I don’t think we should push the limits. I don’t think those would necessarily push the limits of what is appropriate. That is my general paradigm of guidance.” ~ John Piper


https://www.gotquestions.org/women-elders.html

The passages that describe the qualifications and duties of elders/overseers do not open the door for women to serve as elders. In fact, the consistent use of male pronouns and terminology argue strongly for the office of elder/overseer being restricted to men only. As with other issues in this debate, the question of women serving as elders is not a matter of chauvinism. In no sense is this a matter of men being superior to women. Rather, God restricts the office of elder to men only because that is how He has structured the church to function. Godly men are to serve as leadership, with women serving in the crucially important supporting roles.


https://www.gotquestions.org/complem...tarianism.html

What is truly the crux of this argument, and what many egalitarians fail to understand, is that a difference in role does not equate to a difference in quality, importance, or value. Men and women are equally valued in God's sight and plan. Women are not inferior to men. Rather, God assigns different roles to men and women in the church and the home because that is how He designed us to function. The truth of differentiation and equality can be seen in the functional hierarchy within the Trinity (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3). The Son submits to the Father, and the Holy Spirit submits to the Father and the Son. This functional submission does not imply an equivalent inferiority of essence; all three Persons are equally God, but they differ in their function. Likewise, men and women are equally human beings and equally share the image of God, but they have God-ordained roles and functions that mirror the functional hierarchy within the Trinity.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have already explained my use of the term "original plan" that I spoke from our perspective in time, and clarified my statement here:

It all sounds very much like an afterthought from our perspective. Of course God being all-knowing , had a plan all along.

"Our perspective?" I don't think so. This is all YOU. It may sound like an afterthought from YOUR misogynistic perspective. YOUR perspective includes your epic male gender bias and your misogynist bent, which cannot be ignored. Nothing you say regarding women has credibility.

Remember, God did not create women first. They were not originally in God's plan for mankind, until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam.

In eternity past of course women were part of God's plan.

There is no context where these two statements can be attributed to a sober minded man. There is no context where woman was not part of God's plan either in time or eternity. I know. Here's where you break out your "experts".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

"Our perspective?" I don't think so. This is all YOU. It may sound like an afterthought from YOUR misogynistic perspective. YOUR perspective includes your epic male gender bias and your misogynist bent, which cannot be ignored. Nothing you say regarding women has credibility.


There is no context where these two statements can be attributed to a sober minded man. There is no context where woman was not part of God's plan either in time or eternity. I know. Here's where you break out your "experts".

You are not quoting my full statement. I said it sounds like an afterthought but God had a plan all along. By saying it "sounds like an afterthought" I am obviously denying that it was. I never introduced the term afterthought into this discussion. It would be to deny God's plan in creation and also what male and female represent in the new testament. But from Adams perspective he might have felt that God didnt plan a companion for him while he saw the animals had one.

The first company God made for Adam was animals, not women. That's the fact. Hence in the original creation order, or the original plan, it was Adam, then animals, and then wait a minute, Adam is lonely, let's use one of his ribs (not the dust) to create the woman.

You have some biases of your own, namely, the extra-biblical opinions of Bushnell regarding what actually happened in the Garden.

[Evangelical]

Scripture is fairly clear that women will not occupy ruling positions in Gods kingdom. This is another reason why women are not to rule the church.

In Matthew 19.28 Jesus promised his all male disciples to rule over the 12 tribes. No women invited.

In Matthew 20.20.. the mother of James and John asked for them to sit at Christs right and left.

Today, christian feminists would have us believe that the mother herself should occupy such a position.

People like Ohio are happy to quote the plain words of scripture when it suits them.

I wonder what they can do with plain reading of a verse like this:

Isaiah 3.12 as for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

What makes this verse hard to ignore is that it is out of Gods mouth via the prophet. It is God himself saying that female or feminine-like male rulers over His people is a problem.

The only way I see out of this conundrum is to believe that God changed His mind and now accepts female rulers.

A few examples of female rulers does not make female rulers the norm. Just as God using a donkey to speak his word does not mean God wants all donkeys to be prophets.

God designed men for leadership but this does not mean he does not give authority to women as He pleases.

[Nell]

Women have been disparaged since God put enmity between the woman and the serpent in the garden. The woman was deceived by the serpent and she admitted/confessed her state to God. What God did next was an honor to the woman he formed; the woman who was deceived; the woman who admitted her state to God. Maybe not his specific intent, but God honored her with the first prophecy in the Bible. That being, the offspring of this formerly disceived woman would bring about the END of the one who deceived her. This prophesy was fulfilled with the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. While God forgave the woman and blessed her, not everyone has followed suit.

The final end of the deceiver has not been executed yet. While he still has time, the deceiver is out to exact revenge on the woman who he blames for his end. He sees his final destination--the lake of fire--and it's all her fault. So the next time you hear "the woman is to blame" remember who blamed her first. This vengeance by the serpent-deceiver has been, and still is, carried out around the world to this very day. This vengeance has been seen in male dominated cultures around the globe, ad infinitum.

I believe today, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, many Christian men have been blessed with a different mindset. From what the men post here, it seems that most of the men on this forum are of this different mindset to one degree or another. That is, there is a movement underway today to practice the truth of God's word toward all members of the Lord's Body, half of which are women.

Regardless of all the verses that support women as functioning members of the Body of Christ, I believe the powerful, overriding verse is Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." We wrestle against the serpent-deceiver...not the woman. This speaks to the enmity that has existed since the times of the garden in Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Christian women are not the enemy. Christian men are not the enemy. Women have never been the enemy. Yet to save his sorry hide, the sinister, subtle, lying enemy lies to men (and women) as follows: because the woman was deceived in the garden, women deserve to be beaten down to "keep them in their place."

As for the man in the garden who apparently was not deceived, this should not be worn as a badge of honor. It could only mean one thing. Man's sin was willful. He knew what he was doing, and did it anyway.

Western Women in the 20th century finally openly reacted to this serpent-deceiver inspired mistreatment, and the "feminist movement" was born. Soon men and women both went off the rails. The "masculine movement" had been off the rails ad infinitum. Then women finally said "enough", and here we are...and the rails are way over there somewhere.

In summary, secular men and women, as well as Christian men and Christian women are fighting the wrong battle--the wrong enemy. They/we are fighting one another instead of the serpent-deceiver; the fight is waged against the flesh and blood of men and women instead of against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

As CMW said, the Bride of Christ is a woman. The Bride of Christ consists of Christian men and Christian women. Today's Christian misogynists appear to be a shortsighted lot who could do worse than learning something from a woman.

Nell

[Evangelical]

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul gives two reasons why women are not to lead.
The first, is that Adam was created before Eve, thus in God's arrangement and order of things man was to occupy the first place. The second, is that Eve disqualified herself from leadership by being deceived, whereas had the devil tried to tempt Adam he would not have succeeded.

Eve was deceived and Adam willfully sinned. Yet even though willful sin is apparently worse than deception, in church leadership deception is worse than willful sin.

It is better to know when one sins and recognize the deception of the devil than to not know when one sins and not be able to recognize the deception or put up a fight. This is why Adam was preferred for leadership than Eve.

Barne's notes on the bible says:

It is, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead.

She had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation. It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.


The sin of Eve was to be deceived by the devil. The sin of Adam was to be persuaded by his wife and knowingly eat the fruit. He was gullible. Had the devil tried to tempt Adam it would not have worked, yet had Eve not persuaded Adam then Adam would not have sinned. Adam was neither deceived by the devil nor by his wife.

John Piper, seems to gives a good overview here, and I've basically been paraphrasing it:

http://www.desiringgod.org/interview...ders-affirm-it

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul gives two reasons why women are not to lead.
The first, is that Adam was created before Eve, thus in God's arrangement and order of things man was to occupy the first place. The second, is that Eve disqualified herself from leadership by being deceived, whereas had the devil tried to tempt Adam he would not have succeeded.

Eve was deceived and Adam willfully sinned. Yet even though willful sin is apparently worse than deception, in church leadership deception is worse than willful sin.

It is better to know when one sins and recognize the deception of the devil than to not know when one sins and not be able to recognize the deception or put up a fight. This is why Adam was preferred for leadership than Eve.

It is so comforting to have witnessed how this fundamental "truth" has save the male-dominated Recovery from serious error and helped them to realize their sins.

============================================

I have mentioned this on several occasions. But it was a sister, apparently not so spiritual either, who spoke up during the pre-Whistler-quarantine battles between Anaheim and Cleveland and said that the whole think was "simply a war between two ministries and it should not affect the churches." What a word of wisdom from the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12.7-8) to profit the body of Christ.

But what male leader was willing to accept it? Evangelical, let me ask you who was deceived, and who willfully sinned?

.

[OBW]

First, John Piper is not necessarily the end-all of writers on many matters.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet even though willful sin is apparently worse than deception, in church leadership deception is worse than willful sin.

On what do you base this interesting conclusion? Did Paul make any statement about sin being a lesser sin?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul gives two reasons why women are not to lead.
The first, is that Adam was created before Eve, thus in God's arrangement and order of things man was to occupy the first place.

Matt. 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last:

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Scripture is fairly clear that women will not occupy ruling positions in Gods kingdom.

WHAT??!!! So Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 does not pertain to women??
He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (NASB)

“You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (NASB)

Here is the AKJ version:
and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Furthermore, I suppose in your eyes or the LSM's eyes, QUEEN Esther was a fluke and should not have been included in the Scriptures??

C'mon Mr E,
I am really trying to be 'fair and balanced'. But when you make comments like this, your true colors come out! Sorry to do this but here you go. This one is for you --->

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

WHAT??!!! So Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 does not pertain to women??
He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (NASB)

“You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (NASB)

Here is the AKJ version:
and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Furthermore, I suppose in your eyes or the LSM's eyes, QUEEN Esther was a fluke and should not have been included in the Scriptures??

C'mon Mr E,
I am really trying to be 'fair and balanced'. But when you make comments like this, your true colors come out! Sorry to do this but here you go. This one is for you --->

I was speaking of the 12 tribes of lsrael. Women obviously are kings and priests as well yet their gender disappears as there is no male or female in the future kingdom.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was speaking of the 12 tribes of lsrael. Women obviously are kings and priests as well yet their gender disappears as there is no male or female in the future kingdom.

Did you mention the 12 tribes of Israel anywhere and I missed it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

People like Ohio are happy to quote the plain words of scripture.

Thank you!

May we all be so happy!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thank you!

May we all be so happy!

If only you were as plain about 1 Tim 2.12 and Isaiah 3.12 as you are about the verse on deacons. You cannot take a plain and literal interpretation on all these verses and still maintain a cohesive argument. You must take a nonliteral stance on at least one.

I would take a guess and say you would interpret the Timothy verse as applying only to the Corinthians and for the Isaiah verse somehow explain how the woman does not mean woman.