Women's authority over men?

Ah, but the point has been made here that the man is head of the family. Therefore, Hilary had neither the right or responsibility to "control Bill."

 

The answer to the question "Women's authority over men?" depends upon if I am married the women in question or not. :tonofbricks:


Bill :godisgood:

 

Okay you can quote Timothy all you want but today in the twenty first century women are like in way different roles. I know I work forty plus hours a week and come home to my home and run my home and my kids and am even at alot of points running my husband. I love the Lord and spend my time going to work in the morning (I have a one hour commute) and an hour at night before I go to bed in prayer and time in the word. I have been offered several opportunities to go to seminary and to minister to couples etc who have been through PTSD and everything. I firmly believe I have been through all I have been through because God wanted me to take all the pain and suffering and use it to His glory. If I sat there and said well okay I will have to do this and this and wait on my husband for this and this, I would have never gotten where I am today overcoming cancer and my husband cheating and leaving me and now reconciling with me and everything without surrendering it all to God. I have also been through my husband doing 2 tours to Iraq and one to Bosnia. I get so tired of people saying God made different roles for women and men because if I believed that I would be six feet under today because I would have never made it through stage four cancer. I admire strong women because it takes guts to make it in the world today.

 

No wonder your view of church government if flawed. It starts at home, and that is obviously flawed. I pray you allow your husband to be the leader in the home, and that he embraces this role.

 

We have the option of either believing God's word or not. To think His instructions for us do not apply because we are in a more modern world is saying the bible isn't relevant to the world today. The bible applies to us, we just chose not to apply it to our lives so we can live our way.

 

what do you mean 'anymore', as in the bible is outdated and does apply to us with it's instructions to us as women?
How can a person say stuff like you about the bible and still claim to beleive what it says, when you turn around and say you do not beleive what it says.

 

I do disagree with your interpretation of scripture not allowing women to preach. There are too many passages showing women in important roles. And, from all I can see of the life of Christ I can not see anything that makes me think he agrees with you. When I am trying to understand the truth of an imporant issue I look first at the life and teachings of Christ. Then I look at other passages and if there seems to be a problem I side with Christ until I can see how the other passages fit into his life and teachings. I know women can and do teach and preach. The best sermons I have heard the last ten years were all by women ... and the best pastor I have had was a woman.

 

I agree

The point in Scripture is to submit to the authorities (ie government) which God allows over any given country. If this country voted in a female president, Christians must accept this and not rebel.

Of course, I wouldn't vote for Hillary, but that is another matter! :laugh:

 

How many will be in the eternal kingdom because the Spirit of God used the influence of faithful women in their lives?

2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

HankD​

 

Arguments from silence are very dangerous.

We could easily say "can anyone show me from scripture where Jesus placed a black, an oriental, a deaf, or a person with dentures in a position of authority? Were one of the 12 that? NO! Well, so be it, those folks cannot pastor now."

Instead He DID say those that He would place in authority would not be LORDING IT OVER or ruling, but rather humbly serving.

Methinks we need some footwashing practice.

 

Again, I ask what do you mean by authority?

 

Again I ask what do you mean by authority? What "authority" doe a minister have? How is it exercised? What are the minister's responsibilities with this authority?

No, we do not know that Paul was making a universal command. He used the singular wor "I", not a universal plural word. Also, what is the context of this verse? Who was he writing to? What was the situation in the church he was writing to? It is extremely dangerous to build a doctrine, and an important one that affects the lives of millions of Christians on one verse and to argue that just because there are no direct commands or examples in scripture of a woman being a pastor from one verse.

Of course there is no record of a woman being a pastor. Why?

1-All the books accepted into the canon were written by men ... and all the people voting on what should be accepted were men.

2-In the society of that day women had no rights, they were property. That being true and since neither Paul nor Jesus specifically said that women are not property, chattel, is it now a sin that they are not considered such? Using your logic we can just as truthfully build such a doctrine. But it would be a doctrine of error ... just as trying to limit God and women is an error.

It is amazing that women played such an important role in the ministry of Christ considering the "popular religious" view of women at that time.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. It was politically correct in Paul's lifetime to beleive in slavery. But I believe you will agree with me in saying that slavery was an evil and is an evil that still exists in our world. God have revealed himself and we, oh much too slowly, gain understanding of what God really desires.

 

This presumes there is a book that wasn't accepted into the canon, that identifies a woman who was a pastor. If you know of such a book, please identify it. Otherwise, this argument is invalid.

Not all women were property. I refer you to Acts 16, and the record of Lydia; no mention of any husband or master, and a specific reference to "her household."

 

If you were not married obviously you would not be the property of a husband. However, even into early American history when a woman married all her property and riches, if she had any, became the property of her husband.

A good book on the women of colonal America is Founding Mothers by Cokie Roberts. While not the major theme of the book by any means it does give an idea of the rights or lack of them for women at that time. Your public library will have the book. I recommend it to anyone interested in American history, or of the lives of women.

 

IN context of authorities in government

In the context of authorities put into government, I would take that to mean, for our country of America, Presidents, mayors, policemen, firemen....those who are in positions to enforce our laws.

Totally different sense of authority in the Body of Christ....our example is Christ....those in leadership positions in the Body of Christ lead by serving, as Christ gave us the example.

 

And Christ treated women very well.

I appreciate you reply, but it does not describe how this authority is to be manifest in the church and in the lifes of Christians.

 

FTR, I agree as to the danger of attempting to build a doctrine on one (usually out-of-context) verse.

Would this, now, be a good place to mention that "Of course there is no record of a man being a pastor, either. Why??" :tonofbricks:

Aside from that insignificant, inconsequential, irritating, miniscule, small, annoying, trivial, unremarkable, little "inconvenient Biblical truth" that your above quoted statement yet once again, serves to confute, confuse, conflate, complicate, and contuse a spiritual "gift" vis-a`-vis a church 'office/position', somehow, I didn't think so!

This statement presumes a great deal, especially considering that all or parts of several books are entirely anonymous as to the 'author', [including, incidentally, 9 books in the NT, all 4 gospels & Acts, I, II, & III John and Hebrews, although I do personally accept the early church testimony, here, as to all the usually accepted authors of the NT books, excepting only perhaps Hebrews]. Likewise, there are several anonymous OT books (Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel; I & II Kings; I & II Chronicles; Ezra; Nehemiah; Esther; parts of Psalms; and some of the Prophetic books are written entirely in the third person, as well, for about one third of Scripture, in total. Esther is also specifically said to have written a decree that was recorded (Esth. 9:29-32) and the author of 'the book of Esther' cites historical reference in another, non-Biblical book of Chronicles. (Esth. 10:2)

Secondly, I'm not even sure your statement is accurate that the books constituting (at least parts of) Scripture were ever "voted on", per se. In fact, I suggest this to be very inaccurate. There seems to have been little, if any real question as to the authenticity and 'Scripturalness' of much of the NT from the outset. (The OT canon had long since been more or less 'fixed', and "Q" still amounts to a wonderful, speculative, fairy-tale of the last two centuries, nothing more.)

The process seems to be that of 'recognizing' (as opposed to 'determining', either by vote or fiat) that Scripture is Scripture (II Pet. 3:15-16 cp. Col. 4:16), and so to speak, "winnowing the grain away", by "purging the floor", whence the "chaff is driven away".

And this was not always so clearly seen by the writer, as perhaps by others, as the above verses also show.

Nevertheless, there seems to have been little question of over 3/4 of the NT as to its being recognized as Scripture, virtually from the outset (and was never was seriously questioned, including the majority of the 'anonymous' books), except primarily for II Peter, II & III John, Jude, and Revelation, and to a lesser extent, James and Hebrews. Other books that had their varied adherents were seen to not be "Scripture worthy", one by one, including one or more by Paul.

Personally, I am about as "politically incorrect" as one is likely to find. I suggest that that is unlikely to change, anytime soon.

And incidentally, nothing of what I have written has one thing to do with whether or not it is Biblically acceptable for a woman to have any secular political office. I see no exegetical Biblical argument against any such, but would happily change my position on this, if this can be shown from Scripture.

Ed