Women's Role

[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?

.

[Evangelical]

I don't see what this has to do with what the bible says about the role of women. If I was you I would focus on the conundrum you have by the fact that Isaiah 3.12 says women ruling God's people is a negative thing and that is the plain and literal interpretation of this passage. You may quote Bushnell if you like, I don't mind. You may need to use one of my experts to solve this one, even Albert Barnes.

[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?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, John Piper is not necessarily the end-all of writers on many matters.
On what do you base this interesting conclusion? Did Paul make any statement about sin being a lesser sin?

Agree, I don't agree with Piper on some other matters. Perhaps John Piper has not been enlightened by the Spirit and blessed with a different mindset on this matter.

The interesting conclusion is based upon what the biblehub commentaries say on 1 Timothy 2:14. It is not to say that Adam's sin was less than Eve's. Both sinned, but Eve was the one deceived primarily, not Adam.

Ellicott:

Priority in creation was the ground alleged by St. Paul as the reason why the woman was never to exercise authority over man, the eldest born of God. “Adam was not deceived;” the Apostle now refers to the general basis of his direction respecting the exclusion of women from all public praying and teaching contained in 1Timothy 2:9-12. The argument here is a singular one—Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam was not deceived. He sinned, quite aware all the while of the magnitude of the sin he was voluntarily committing. Eve, on the other hand, was completely, thoroughly deceived (the preposition with which the Greek verb is compounded here conveying the idea of thoroughness)—she succumbed to the serpent’s deceit. Both were involved in the sin, but only one (Eve) allowed herself to be deluded.

Barnes:

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.

When it is said that "Adam was not deceived," it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
But in Ge 3:13, Eve says, "The serpent beguiled me." Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives [Bengel], (2Co 11:3)


Even though both Adam and Eve sinned, the likelihood and consequence of Eve being tempted and being deceived and tempting others (Adam) is worse than Adam voluntarily succumbing to the persuasion of his wife.

[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:

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

Why would anyone want to be a leader then?

[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?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

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

My second paragraph to the post of mine you quoted

[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.