Women's role in the church

Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as through the one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men...." (14)..."Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses...."

Clearly, Paul lays the responsibility of sin entering into the world at the feet of Adam, not Eve. I believe that is true because Adam was responsible, as the head of his household, to ensure Eve did not eat of the tree.

I have already acknowledged that there are examples of women leaders in scripture. The commandment of God, IMHO, refers to leadership within a family and leadership within the church.

The I Tim. passage is very clear. Women are not to teach or have authority over men in the church. Paul is addressing leadership within the church, and not within society.

The issue of women remaining silent while receiving instruction may be, perhaps, a narrow instruction for that particular congregation that was experiencing problems with certain women disrupting the teaching services.

The teaching about male leadership in the home and in church, however, has its foundation in the creation. That cannot be considered a cultural issue, since there was no culture to consider at the creation. It is a commandment of God, based on His desired order, according to His wisdom.

peace to youraying:

 

Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as through the one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men...."

to all men...Hmmm so the women don't have to trouble about redemption.

Adam has two meanings...the man Adam,,an adam, the human race.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The point of the Romans passage is not to teach about Adam, male headship or even "original sin". It is Paul contrasting Adam, as a pattern for all of sinful humanity and the super abundance of grace provided by Jesus. To get anything other then that is to stretch this passage beyond what it actually teaches.

Clearly in the 1 Timothy passage the women is responsible for sin - either this is a contradiction, it applied to a specific situation in that church or your interpretation is off, I vote number 2 and 3

OK, so the silence part is for a particular congregation, but not the rest of it - now who is picking and choosing scripture

Male leadership in the home cannot be argued from Creation since in Genesis it says they were created equally in the image of God without distinction (1:27). You might be able to argue it from the Fall, but even if you could, we are post resurrection where such distinctions are now unnecessary.

 

I think the passage in 1 Tim 2 teaches that women are not to be publicly teaching the male leaders of the church and that they are not to be devoted to "climbing the ladder" in the church among the leaders.

One good reason is that men respond much better to male leadership. Typically if you want strong leadership in a church then it must be the males who are leading. Men will respond to male leadership but not very well to female leadership.

Years ago I pastored a church where the men were used to letting the women do all the work and sit on the side. During that time some women wanted to lead things and I told them I would not let them. Once some of them figured out why I did that then they took a back seat and let the men step up to the plate and lead. I had never seen a bunch of whimpy men in any church I was a member of before pastoring. The women acted more like men and the men acted more like women. They would even telll their husbands what to do and seemed to be rather proud of it. My wife was even repulsed by those women. I began to train some of the men to lead and it solved a lot of problems both in the church and at home. Men began leading their families and the church.

 

I would agree that men respond better to men, probably in most cultures, but that doesn't seem to me to justify excluding the possibility of a women leading based on these passages

 

Except, in context of Romans, Paul uses "Adam" to refer to the one man, Adam. He then contrasts the sin of one man, Adam, with the righteousness of the one man, Jesus...and the respective effects toward the rest of mankind.

The context of Romans demands "Adam" be viewed as the one, literal, Adam.

There can be no doubt, at least I hope no doubt, that the I Tim. passage is clearly referring to literal Adam and Eve.

I have answered you directly. You have failed to answer my questions concerning the relevance of your experience as a student with a Godly female professor.

Does your experience determine your hermeneutic?

Does your experience with the Godly female professor invalidate God's Word concerning male leadership within the church and the home?

peace to youraying:

 

ah,... but... it is the opinion of most here that scripture (all of it) is inspired by God. In which case Paul's cultural opinion is inspired by God.

 

Paul is referring to the literal, one man, Adam, not all of humanity, when he reveals that the responsibility for sin coming into the world and spreading to all men lays at the feet of the one, literal, Adam. That was my point and nothing more.

It is only a contradiction in your mind. Pual refers to creation to lay the foundation of male leadership in the church. That is clear in the context.

The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, disagrees with you. Paul clearly lays the foundation of male leadership by referring to the creation.

BTW, although they were both created equally, God did make a distinction in that God called the woman a helper.

Again, Paul is the one arguing male leadership by referring to the Fall.

Paul wrote this passage, under inspiration of Holy Spirit, in the post resurrection era. The Apostle Paul, under inspiration of Holy Spirit, seemed to think the distinction was still an important part of God's order for the church in deciding leadership roles.

peace to youraying:

 

Aw, shucks....

Some time ago, someone posted the following defintion of a biblical marriage. I have copied it for use at church when the issue comes up again.

Did you write this?

peace to youraying:

 

I apologize for not understanding your point.:thumbs:

 

Based on the font - I bet it was Scarlett . . .

 

Yikes! Talk about sticking my foot in my mouth. :tonofbricks:

peace to you:laugh:

 

Thanks. I copied it, but didn't put the name on it.

peace to youraying:

 

The historical critical method has pretty much influenced us to consider only the original context and culture. But can one prove that the text was only meant to apply to the original receptors?

 

Yes, as a matter of fact we can. When it says in one place that women were serving in leadership and in another place that they are to be silent you have one of two choices. Either Paul is contradicting himself and the Bible is not true or Paul was addressing a specific situation unique to that context and culture and both are true thus eliminating the contradiction.

This is to say nothing of the role of progressive revelation or the type/ genre of scripture being read.

 

I didn't say "with authority over men" you did. I simply said leadership roles. You seem to be a bit hung up on authority, who has it, who should have it - much more so then the New Testament writers I might add.

My point still holds even without your caveat. If women are to be silent and that is said without concern for a context and applies for all times then the Bible contradicts itself because we know this was not the case. Therefore there must be some context to be concern ourselves with when interpreting that passage.

The characteristics for an elder are listed in Timothy and there is much debate if that should confined to then or applied to now. I would say confined to then considering all the other "local specific" context established previously with application for today - these are the type of individuals we should be looking for.