₦airaland Forum

That is why I have offered a bold challenge that you and TV01 come back and post in bold capitals that NO VERSE ever taught that women were to have any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever.

NOT OVER MATURE CHRISTIAN MALES.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1300223#msg1300223 date=1184702752]Again, confusing the home for the Church. That is why I have offered a bold challenge that you and TV01 come back and post in bold capitals that NO VERSE ever taught that women were to have any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever. Please dare me and oblige my challenge - I have a shocker for you guys![/quote]Oya shock us now !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg1296522#msg1296522 date=1184613267]Could anyone try to share on Hebrews 7:8 - "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."[/quote]Read thus (in context);

And here (i.e under the law in Israel which still existed at the time of writing Hebrews) men (mortal  priests appointed under the Old Covenant) that die (neccessitating a new appointment) receive tithes (from those who are under the law of Moses); but there (In the Genesis 14 account 2000 years prior, during the time of Abraham) he (Melchizedek) receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Again, the whole thrust of the tithing reference is to show that the Melchizedek High Priesthood is superior to the Aaronic/Levitical type. Levi via Abraham paid tithes to a superior type. Melchizedek was King & Priest (Leviters were only priests). The levitical priesthood consisted of mortal, sinful men who continually died and had to be re-appointed. The Lord is/was without sin. Melchizedek was "without father, without mother not having geneaolgy, typified an endless life ("of whom it is witnessed that he liveth". The kind of Life and High Priesthood that our Lord now has. Because He lives forever. Allelujah!

Please, if anyone has anything to justify a mandatory tithe or indeed a voluntary one - with unique benefits that make it different from "simple giving" - for NT Christians, just say so. If anyone wishes to languish in the bondage that tithing engenders, again feel free. But please, in the absence of detailed, comprehensive scriptural back-up, stop trying to push this as common practise and sound doctrine.

God bless
TV

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg1296518#msg1296518 date=1184613149]2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?[/quote]Firstly, please note, that I am not delineating giving, or ascribing income streams to generosity, or quantifying earthly returns for sacrificial behaviour, nor being mystical about  a "tithe" or anything else. Just talking about "giving" in response to a need (mainly) or to bless.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

Philippians 4:15
Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. 19 And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

I'm sure there are more examples, but that is just the gist of my thoughts. Giving engenders blessings both here and in the hereafter. But there is nothing to suggest that there is a direct formula or law commanding specific returns in this age.

God bless
TV

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg1296518#msg1296518 date=1184613149]1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?[/quote]Matthew 5:42
Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Matthew 25:37
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?

Mark 10:21
Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."

Luke 3:11
He answered and said to them, "He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise."

Luke 6:30
Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back.

Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

Luke 11:41
But rather give alms of such things as you have; then indeed all things are clean to you

Luke 12:33
Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys

Acts 20:35
I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

2 Corinthians 9:7
So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver

Ephesians 4:28
Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need

1 Timothy 6:18
Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share,

Anyone looking for a an amount attached to the outline for giving is probably missing the understanding of grace and maturity. Flip side of that coin would be to be somewhat legally minded in approach to NT Christian living.

Hope that obliges !

God bless
TV

Just to let you know that i'm eagerly waiting .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Talk to your brother sage - he's the one who tried to force the idea that leadership among God's people in the OT was the exclusive preserve of men; whereas that's not what the Bible teaches at all.[/quote]The Bible teaches that overall charge was the preserve of males. Women hade roles and responsibilities. But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of male rulership.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]You guys are simply making a a weak case. If Deborah's case was not pivotal in terms of leadership among God's people, she would not even be recorded in Scripture at all!![/quote]Listen to yourself Miss. Deborahs case is not pivotal to leadership amongst God's people. Not then and not now. There were many OT kings both in united and divided Israel, presumably they are not pivotal? Keep hiding behind an anomalous OT example, whilst steadfastly ignoring the undeniable OT themes of male leadership (as in charge, rule).

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Why is her case so much of a trouble for you guys - just because she happens to have been a woman? Would you have treated Deborah's case on the same weak premise if she happened to have been a man?[/quote]The discussion can't overlook gender. That's what it's about. Niether does the Bible do so, although you beg to differ.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]That Deborah's case was indeed pivotal at a critical time in history of the entire nation of Israel has been offered already - so try not dismiss her case on mere human pressumptions.[/quote]Pivoltal to what exactly? Certainly not to the notion that leadership of God's people was a gender-neutral exercise. Please stop misappropriating that word.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Besides, I have noted that she was not the only one as a woman that God used in the leadership of His people - please go back and see.[/quote]See what exactly? There is nothing too see or too suggest that there is anything other than a pattern of male leadership (as in rule, not care) in the congregation of the faithful.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Cry all you want. The issues are clearly before you; and how you can falsify that presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is a term of leadership applied to both men and women is still yet to be done. Until you show me where that term is specifically applied to only men, you have no weight to your assertive denials.[/quote]Ah, now we are talking pivotal. This is the crux of your whole premise. That the word "presbuteros" means church or religious elder in all instances. That is nothing less than new-age, militant feminist PC theology. The usage and context that underpins your whole arguement (along with Sister Debbie  ) in no way suggests that "Female Church Elders" were being refered to. Indeed nothing in scripture suggests there is such a creature.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Oh dear, something must be amiss in this kind of reasoning. TV01, for brotherly love's sake, let me point out a simple issue you're missing. The 1st epistle of Peter was written by someone who was both an apostle (ch. 1:1) and at the same time an elder (ch. 5:1). He did not drop one for the other to accommodate the reasoning you're putting forward here. Both terms do not mean the same thing; but it does not necessarily mean that Peter was seen in only one while writing the epistle, whereas he clearly stated both in the same epistle.  .[/quote]I have repeatedly invited you to enlighten us as to what Apostles do in the local congregation in this day and age. How they would align and harmonise with the other leadership functions you see, but you keep slipping and sliding like the "Teflon Don" are there "Donnettes"?   (And I don't mean Donnie's back up crew from Christ Embassy 0!   ).

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]This excuse that Peter did not outline the "qualifications" for eldership in his epistle does not negate the fact that he clearly used the same term for "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) - the very same term Paul used for both males and females in his epistle to speak of elders as leaders. Please go check out the Greek term for "elders" in 1 Pet. 5:1, and ask yourself how that differs from the same term applied to both men and women in 1 Tim. 5:1 & 2. (Oh boy! This is so easy!)  .[/quote]The same word in context had a different meaning. He was speaking to those who shepherded the flock - Church Elders - no dispute.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Very good, bros. .  very good. Why has it taken you forever to asnswer the one simple question of stating how many apostles you read in the NT? Just why is it taken you forever?[/quote]Apostles as named. Those doing apostolic (foundational) work, quite a few. Learn to identify the purpose of office and function. The phases of planning and building to a blueprint. And how once completed control and structure are maintained.

Also note that I didn't ask you an obtuse question. I asked you what, why and how and told you exactly why I was enquiring and how it related to the discussion.


[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Oya sage, where are you? I don't see how you've been forcing the idea of men leading the "pue worship" of Christian believers.

In reference to your last lines, I would like you to please clearly enunciate where in the NT only men lead the "pure worship" of Christians. I'll wait until you do so, before I show you what you're missing.?[/quote]It's almost admirable, the way you bat around non-essentials, and digress down dead-ends. Worship can be individual, but also in a sense collective. In it's collective sense, there is an element of structure, authority and rule. Your wilfully misreading Sage is evidence of the futility of your premise.

Pertinent to note is that even if Sage is 100% wrong on this point, it advances your case not a jot. But I guess you enjoy the non-consequential little skirmishes sha  !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Can we look forward to a discussion henceforth, or we continue to play it the way you make out?[/quote]Happy to discuss. But you have very little to go on. Indeed, I almost pity you. One abberation (not truly relevent anyway) and one misinterpretation to make a plausible case. Hard work girl.

I am not even going to say your conclusion is wrong, just that you have not yet proven (even to the degree of putting doubt in my mind) it to any real degree.

Let me hail you as the "Queen of the futile endeavour"  

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1287841#msg1287841 date=1184337262]Cheers. [/quote]Warm regards

God bless
TV

Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church

In or over what exactly?

approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches

Written by whom?

Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.

Really?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me." John 14:6.

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Thessalonians 5:9

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
Hebrews 5:9

And so on and so forth.

Would someone be kind enough to have a word with Benny please  . Ta!

The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders

So?

God bless
TV

(b) If you are making out all the disciples to be ONLY MEN, may I ask you what you think of Rom. 16:7 - "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me"?

Junia ~ Gender debatable at best. Note the word "kinsmen"

Hmmmmm. Lengthy posts trying to force OT paradigms, even though we are agreed that they are not binding on NT practice. And especially in light of the fact that the NT contains clear instruction  .

Not to mention that the one case, at the one peculiar time even in the OT did not represent the prescribed pattern for that dispensation. Deborah is not pivotal to the conclusion of our discussion here, and my ceding that point was in some way strategic, so that we could focus on points that were  .

Whilst the case of Deborah is used to force through equivalence, the similar case for priesthood is used to trumpet change. From a male only priesthood, to a universal one. Leadership is now split from priesthood and instituted as a seperate function  .

Trying to re-engineer the word presbuteros to mean church/religious elder in all instances is not bourne out by sound scholarship or the context in the scriptural narrative, and is a clumsy fudge for the purpose of this particular discussion. Particularly disdainful is the attempt to gender stream eldership and the congregation by inferring male elders for men and female for women. Wrong religion  .  

Peter was an apostle and an elder. True. But not necessarily both at the same time. In foundational endevour he was an apostle, but as evidenced by the scriptural narrative, as the church in Jerusalem matured - and it probably happened real quick given the number of the 12 apostles around - church became a day-to-day exercise and he functioned as an elder  .

Hence Peters exhortation in his epistle. Note he did not give an outline for the qualifications for elders, done elsewhere in a foundational sense by Paul. He wrote more in terms of motivation and to exhort, using himself as an example. Isn't scripture just divine !

The by now dusty question about how apostles and prophets harmonise and articulate within mature congregational dynamics has yet to be answered by proponents of female Church elders. I'd appreciate explication - particularly of the oft cited Ephesians 4 - for those of us "confusing" variious leadership roles in the body.  .

I wouldn't read worship as synonymous leadership. Worship (as in loving/adoring/ God) is first and foremost an individual thing, and even as a collective endevour, not something that can be subject in truth. Worship as the whole opffering (everything one does as a believer and member of the congregation) is indeed subject in parts. But that part has nothing to do the priesthood being universal, and everything to do with the blueprint for congregational activity and function.

The trite and spiteful remarks about manhood and asides about real men are telling.

God bless
TV

JohnFOM:
To summarise Malina's article:

Malina asks if the word group 'porneia' covered all the meanings attributed to it in this contemporary time, or are these later usages placed onto the word group in later times and later cultures?

The clear meanings are: cultic sexual practices, idolatory, incest and, commercial harlotry.

Other meanings attributed to the word group are doubtful and disputable in general usage.  Using scripture to interpret scripture, Malina adds the sins of homosexuality, beastiality, sex during the menstrual period, and sacrifice to Molok  (mixed marriages) from the Levitical lists (perhaps adding polygamy at a stretch).

At no point, prior to the 2nd century did porneia mean pre-betrothal, non-commercial, non-cultic, hetrosexual intercourse, and even in the second century it was considered so only by a single Jewish rabbi.

Hi JohnFOM,

Appreciate your outlining your denominational/traditional experience, and additionally the effort to read through the whole thread. Read your posts with interest and noted the article you referenced.

Re the last paragraph in particualr and specifically "pre-betrothal"

Would that suggest that the author considered sex even without betrothal permissable?

I know discussions tend to morph, so whilst this thread is titled;
"Pre-marital sex is not fornication", we are additionally asking "Is pre-marital sex sinful?"

I don't really care to argue historical semantics, so I'm more concerned as to the second point, as that is something that impacts one's day-to-day Christian walk.

Why would it be better to marry than to burn, if it was fine to just go ahead and have sex?
If the marriage bed is undefiled, what (apart from infidelity & deviancy as outlined), is defiling sexual behaviour?

A further point about "Consent & Consumation". I noted the historical agreement that marriage takes place upon consent. Again, I wouldn't argue the point too fervently, but I would say this.

In OT times, rape of an unbetrothed women meant an enforced marriage. Noting also that Isaac "went into his wife" at first meeting (though I'd agree that she had already consented). So I'm not sure that consent has to be first, or is the tipping point.

Personally, and in this day and age, apart, so as not to cause offence, I'd suggest consent, ceremony and then consumation. And probably advise consent before consumation in all cases  !

Like I said, enjoyed the article, can't say I agreed with it all. neither can I say I feel compelled to live be the ruling of any historical precedent or any person outside scripture.

God bless
TV

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1281435#msg1281435 date=1184173839]You're missing the point, really.[/quote]On the contrary, I absolutely get it.

Having spoken about the role of Bishop, Paul went on to talk about how older, more mature brethren should be treated. Spiritual maturity or authority, should not mean that physical maturity and experience should not be honoured or is not useful for the care of the brethren.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1281435#msg1281435 date=1184173839]Men are elders.[/quote]Church elders & also brethren who are mature in age, being careful to distinguish them.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1281435#msg1281435 date=1184173839]Women are also elders.[/quote]Not "Church Elders", but congregants who are mature in age.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1281435#msg1281435 date=1184173839]Men and women have their various roles as elders in Church.[/quote]Indeed, both men and women have various roles in the church, but "Church Eldership" is reserved for SQM.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1281435#msg1281435 date=1184173839]Together, they are called elders (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros).[/quote]Yes now! If you employ convoluted arguments and go to great lengths to fudge the differences. !

God bless
TV

So what this suggests is that the term is dependent on context, and the context and usage in Titus 2 does not suggest "Church Elders". Sowwy !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1281320#msg1281320 date=1184171337]Could you please be man enough to apply your brains?[/quote]Could you kindly outline how, or better still, explain.

Thanks

Patience is a virtue. Indeed, it's a fruit of the Spirit and evidence of sacrificial love.

@Pilgrim

Please consult your Greek study materials and refute the exact wordings showing that women are called exactly what the men are called.

Just for you and in love (phileo), and with respect to you as the weaker vessel .

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4246 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
presbuvth߼/FONT> from the same as (4245)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Presbutes 6:683,931
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pres-boo'-tace Noun Masculine

Definition
an old man, an aged man ambassador

King James Word Usage - Total: 3
old man 1, aged man 1, aged 1


The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4247 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
presbu'ti߼/FONT> from (4246)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Presbutis None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pres-boo'-tis Noun Feminine

Definition
an aged woman

King James Word Usage - Total: 1
aged women 1

KJV Verse Count
Titus 1


I could go on and on, but I'll leave you to reflect. With or without a lexicon, concordance, dictionary PHD in the languages of antiquity or really old Greek in-laws , one can clearly discern the context , setting and tone of Titus.

Any more for any more?

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim.1,

Giving place to you as the weaker vessel  , let me comment.

(g) Can I attend a Church led by a Woman?

I believe that Scripture shows us that leadership in the Body of Christ (or in the Church) is a joint exercise rather than an exclusive "men only" or "women only" sort of thing. The elders are both men and women, each having their various distinct roles to play in the Church.

If you insist leadership = care, then yes. Albeit "Church Eldership" is the preserve of SQM.
Also your effort to claim that older women are to teach the younger ones - thus making the older teachers "Elders" -  is true only in part, as it doesn't make them elders.

The corrallary for men is also found wanting, as proper Elders can teach all of the congregation (if they are men, and gifted in teaching). Although it may be wise to let some non-core stuff be handled on a gender basis.

If that is the setting, praise God. But if God in His sovereignty uses women effectively as He does men in some instances, praise Him all the more. I could attend a church where women are in leadership; but I doubt if I would most gladly want to remain there.

Here's where you make a lie of all your postings and a wierd disconnect between your belief and practice.

Why if you beieve in "balance in leadership", differing capacitities and all the other highly spun jargon you have used to push your agenda (futilely it must be said), would you have a problem "where women are in leadership"? Indeed, it can be taken as read from your posts, that if such is not the case, there is something amiss. So you should rather be saying the opposite, that you cannot gladly remain in a church where women are not in leadership.

Talk about weaker and more easily decieved .

But as I said, I give place to that.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim,

Uncouth aggressiveness is unbecoming - even in men - please desist.

Your posts numbered 293 - 296 are not without merit. But being as they are based on post #292, they have to be read with a discerning eye.

More knowledgable, better read contributors have with more depth and clarity already debunked and shred you wilfully misinterpreted and mis-applied reading of Titus 2.

I said something worthy of response. I am not so much responding as highlighting, your trite schoolgirlish ploy to mis-contextualise and mis-apply the reference to older (more mature) congregants as denoting church elders. To further advance and claim it speaks to both genders as such, and even go as far as to claim it's a "call" to eldership. My, my, you are bold.

If that and your rancid diatribe was noot sufficient, you then proceeded to make a nonsense of all you posted previously in #297.

Based on this encounter and your attitude in it, I'd wholesale love to say that women should just "kipshot". But God be thanked, that neither my understanding or approach are informed by my encounters or anecdotal evidence.

I thank Him further, that  I have cause to appreciate His work in the male/female creation and the value, worth and contribution of men women in the church.

God bless
TV

Every able adult Christian male should have a job. _{(Possible exception of itinerant minister in far-flung location with no means/souce of work or trade, and is required to be at that location to minister effectively.)}

@ Pilgrim.1,

Re post 289, I’ll ignore that as you are obviously still in an emotional state.

Re post 290, please calm down. No need to get over excited. But I guess that’s a gender thing huh ? Firstly I have not bossed anyone or the discussion as a whole, secondly I am merely articulating my position, based on my walk. I do not claim dominion over anyone’s faith, although I suggest you cower behind your husband or the patriarch of your family .

It’s obvious that more than scripture informs your responses and line of reasoning. I said quite clearly that a congregation with SQE does not need oversight. Plain and simple. Meaning, as any reasonable person would have figured (or asked if they didn’t), that the SQE provide oversight for the congregation, but there is no need for any external or outside oversight.

Further from all that had gone before, it was obvious that I felt overall shepherding of the flock was the duty of SQE. It would help if you stuck to articulating your beliefs and not your outrage at me or you mis-interpretation of mine .

An overblown and wordy post on the basis of willful misrepresentation. Add that to you list of sins (redefining re-engineering etc.) .

I guess another one I should simply ignore. If I find anything worthy of response, I’ll be sure to do so.

God bless
TV

TayoD:
Thatnks so much for your input. My persuasuins are exact same with yours with regards to the scriptures you've been discussing. I mentioned earlier in the debate that I will get to the various scriptures that TV and Sage use to propagate their male pre-eminence but you pre-empt me.

Oh man! that's harsh, labelling me a chauvinist pig .

I am not suggesting male pre-eminence. Just differing aeas of ministerial duty. Who ever said that eldership was about pre-eminence? Not in singular or plurality. You appear to be confusing the biblical outline of servant-leadership, with the bombast and excess of modern day MOG's. If people truly understood the hardship, rigours and privation suffered by those "pre-eminent" in the early church, they'd run a mile.

TayoD:
In any case, I held back from discussing the scriptures because I believe a foundation needed to be laid, and while I have been unequivocal about my stand, TV has been playing it both ways. I'll explain.

Oh man!!
Now you are calling me "forked tongued"

TayoD:
I feel the foundation that needs to be laid for this discussion is the equality in all aspects of relationship between both sexes. The only time a male gets pre-eminence over a female is within the marriage relationship. Within the Body of Christ, we are regarded as one. While TV says he agrees with this on one hand, he violates that basic principle in reserving some roles for women within the body. I wonder why he kesps saying that a woman can not exercise authority over mature male because he feels that will be usurping authority over the mature male. But he has failed to realise that the only mature male a female can usurp authority over is her husband. No matter how mature you are, you have no ounce of authority over my wife. My wife's submission to the authorities in church is not because of their sex, but because of the office they occupy as Christ's representative.

In creation, in salvatio, in value, in worth and in complementing each other in union, men and women are equals. In service as in union, they may have more to do in certain areas.

In a family relationship it's husbands that can be usurped
In a church relationship, it's divinely instituted eldership authority that can be.
As no man has authority over anyone but his wife, no woman has authority over any mature man.

TayoD:
The only seeming "advantage" the scripture testifies that a male has over a female is the fact that the female is regarded has having a weaker vessel, and we know that relates solely to the flesh. If the role of elders have nothing to do with how strong a person is, why set the women aside then? The whole argument just doesn't make sense to me.

So theny are not equal? Talk of forked tongues !

Weaker vessel = Solely to the flesh? ~ The  woman being decieved = ??

If in the church, there is UGE, why cannot women teach? If the only difference is physical strength. and nothing else, why can't they teach?

God bless
TV

TayoD:
I remember you saying something earlier about a man being the "head" of his family including the children. That is absolutely untrue. A man is head only of his wife, same a Christ is the "Head" of the Church and the Church only.

I'm sure niether of us wants to get bogged down in semantics here. A father has authority/rule over his children.

I am not saying everyman man is the head of every woman. At home its husband then wife, at church it's SQM elders who have a call/responsibility to shepherd the flock.

TayoD:
"Headship" is what God had in mind when He said "It is not good that the man should be alone." Adam's creation in God's image was incomplete without him in a relationship with a dinsticnt person that is one with him. God must have looked at the Godhead, and envisioned the Church and concluded that Adam by himself does not represent these relationships.

TayoD, you have to buttress your points more when you introduce hitherto unknown superstitions ! or maybe I should say, I don't know that one O, please explicate further! I could have sworn it was "companionship".

TayoD:
Adam became a true image of the Christ to come when he had a wife. Children were not part of the equation when God now saw that all that He created was "Very Good". I hope my elaborate explanation is well understood now.

It was far from elaborate sir. And no, I am non the wiser

God bless
TV

The topic is more to the point of churches being LED by women, not about your own playing to galleries. That in itself is what I was more concerned about, and I trust you should be sensible enough to appreciate that. Now the basic question has been one about what LEADERSHIP entails; and all along you have been narrowing it down to just eldership as if that is the only leadership role taught in the Word. If you are open to discussion and understood what leadership involved, you would not be so narrow minded as to have seen it as something exclusively reserved unto men.

But since you have re-defined "lead" as "care", that is not exactly true is it
I have never claimed Leadership = Eldership, even going by your re-engineered meaning
So once again, leadershp is open to all, eldership is open to males only. Simply stated.

I believe they can. Yes. Simple.

Assuming you don't have a peculier interpretation of eldership, pray tell, if women can be elders,
what is it if anything that precludes UGE in church? Also if women can be elders, how can usurpation be on gender lines and why can't they teach?

After all I have agreed that Deborah was a judge with all the capacity of the male judges right? Are you now turning around to say that women elders are not to function in the full capacity of male elders?

Why spend reams, re-defining and re-enginering, which served only to becloud and obscure?. Why not just say, "women can do this and this, but not this (and why)". Or, they can do anything/everything. Then points of difference can be discussed

Ephesians 4 does not teach us that. That is the classic argument of people who have denied God's gift to His Church until they also claimed miracles are a thing of the past! The apostles in that chapter are included among those in verse 11 for the on-going ministry that results in verse 12 & 13:

  "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

That is why Christ gave those gifts in verse 11; and that is why I agree with stimulus question and would like to repeat it here again: "How many apostles do you read in the NT"?

Who has denied miracles?
Please tell us, what do apostles do in this day and age?

In that "care" - was Paul a leader exercising leadership or not

Whoops, swallowing your own tail. I thought you said care was leadership?

In all fairness, so that I don't misread you, what you have just said is that there is no need for "oversight" from anyone today?

A mature congregation with SQ elders in place has no need for oversight.  Matters arising can be discussed and settled within. There can of course be recourse to elders/mature believers in other locations, but that in no way suggests they are/have to be subject in some way to them, or some other authority outside their locale.

The church has been founded, the blueprint is published. No more apostles or those doing apostolic  (foundational) work. Even church started in a place that had not hitherto heard the gospel would be established as laid down by scripture and according to the prescribed pattern and established doctrine. "The faith once for all delivered". Nobody can bring new doctrine, new revelation or anything foundational. What Paul and the other apostles prescribed was and is authoritative.

Why would oversight oversight of mature congregations be required? And in any event, why would this oversight be "Apostolic"?

Once a church has SQE in place any oversight/outside care becomes unecessary, they are autonomous in ruling and caring for each other.

What Paul and those of that era (apostles or not) where doing ws establishing this foundation according to a blueprint. All we do now is build on it. Not re-define or re-engineer it, as some would have us do  ! Canon is closed. We know how church should function, what is right, what is acceptable and what is wrong. We know why we congregate, we know how the dynamics of church and family relationships are supposed to work.

Try reading earlier back in Ephesians, before you become overly fatigued by trying to articulate your whole understanding on the one verse. With due consideration congrgations can discuss and agree. Matthew 18 may help here.

Apologies for ignoring most of your obviously hormonal driven diatribe  !

God bless.
TV

Hi Analytical,

Just as the verses don't just mean they must be married men with children!  What if the person here is not married and don't have children- just as Paul?  Does he still qualify as an elder/deacon?  I'm trying to let you see that those verses don't preclude singles as well as females.  They are only saying 'in case he/she is married' or 'if he/she has a family'.

The outline speaks to the requisite qualification for elders/deacons. IFF they are married , it must be to the one wife (polygamy as we are aware was a problem).

As I have repeatedly said, church rule dovetails and harmonises with home authority, and I personally see scripture as starting with the home. They must rule their own homes (wife and children) well, as a pre-requisite to serving as elder/deacon. But this is IFF they have them. There are and have always been instances of barreness in congregations. Is childlessness a disqualifier? If anything, childlessness would give one more time to minister to the flock. It is gender based, not marital status, or age.

It precludes females. Females do not rule homes, cannot marry wives, and could not commit polygamy/polyandry in that age, due to their status in society.

Analytical:
If you check other translations, the word rendered 'Likewise their wives' say 'Women in like manner'.  In other words, 'if the person happens to be a woman' the same applies.  In fact some translations say 'Deaconesses . . .'  Remember it is not talking of every member of the congregation here.  This place is discussing those to be appointed as deacons.  They are stipulations for both male and female!

I will check this claim out. Care to mention any?

Analytical:
I did say the emphasis is against polygamy (in all it's varieties), whether one spouse at a time, many at once, or whichever form.  If the person is married, (s)he must be to one person only (except of course if the cause of separation is death), which is consistent with NT christianity!  If not that scripture would have read simply 'married' instead of saying 'the husband of one wife'.

Agreed re the emphasis on polygamy. But the emphasis is also on gender. Can a woman be the "husband of one wife (food for the same-sex brigade)?" Are women generally considered "violent" Do women "rule" homes? Read the outline for deacons again. It says "Likewise their wives", are you claiming this is gender neutral or should necessarily read "spouse?"

Analytical:
Both male and female, married and single, having children or without, are being addressed.  I think it's all-encompassing.  Why do you think women could not be polygamous at that time?  Consider it's varieties.  Remember the woman by the well of Samaria?  She had 6 before and the 7th one was not even married to her!

No sir, adult, mature, suitably qualified males were being addressed. The woman by the well was not a polygamist. She was an adulteress. The status of wopmen precluded polygamy/polyandry on their part, as I stated previously.

Analytical:
I know we have been through that before.  But the fact remains that Phoebe was called a deaconess, which you said females cannot be.  Of course any christian work is about service.  Who is debating Phoebe being a deaconess?

Phoebe was a servant and "a helper of many". It is at best debatable that she was anything more than it reads. Why do we have to ferret out tenuous examples,  to prove debatable claims in order to support doubtful doctrine?

Analytical:
It dosen't apply in every case, but the context and evidence from Phoebe proves it applies here.

I do not agree it does. Do you have anything else to offer in support of your position?

So, can a woman be elder with authority over her husband in Church?

God bless
TV

lafile:
I have always based my decision to tithe on Luke 11:42 "But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

During Jesus' lifetime, the law was still in effect. His whole work of salvation hinged on his totally fulfilling the law while alive. He was addressing a Jew, a Pharisee, who was stilll bound by the law. To tell him to break the law would have practically aborted His whole mission.

What The Lord did, was to go beyond the letter of the law, to show the intent of the law. Indeed, in Christ, there is more, a further stage.

You are niether Jewish, a Pharisee nor bound by the law. Christ has since died, and Allelujah, He is risen. Law-based tithing is one of those things now "taken out of the way", "nailed to the cross". My brother, enjoy your liberty in Christ.

lafile:
but I'ld rather tithe.

And I won't seek to deny you the liberty to do so.

God bless
TV

@ Analytical,

I appreciate your right to disagree. May we allcontinue to look to God and His Word for guidance.

1 Timothy 3:

1.This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, F3 but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

Presumably verses 4 & 5 refer to women also?

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

And verse 12? And could the “wives” in verse 11 be read as “husband” or maybe “spouse”?

It appears to me your position is based on those verses (same as in Titus).  But if you go rigidly by those letters of the words, then an elder or a deacon must be a married male!  This is not the case because Paul, through whom the Holy Spirit inspired those words, was not even married and he was an elder of the church.

I see this line of thought as somewhat flawed. You make the point that the thrust is against “polygamy”, a simpler and more obvious interpretation would be “if the man is married”, not that he “has to be married”

Point 1:  You don't have to be married to be an elder or a deacon!

=> Point 1: is wide, as I didn’t claim one did.

Point 2:  The issue being addressed in those highlighted words is polygamy and not gender!

=> Point 2: is out, as both are being addressed, and without contradiction. Women could not be polygamous at that time, which only buttress the point that it is men as in males that are being referred to.

This leads us to the corollary therefore, that:

Point 3: A female can actually be a deacon or an elder!

=> Point 3: A double fault. Probably as the basis is flawed and the premise faulty.

Phoebe was a deacon(ness).  The word translated servant is 'diakonon' from which we have 'deacon'.  Check Strong's Greek Dictionary to confirm:

diakonon - 'specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess) -- deacon, minister, servant.'.

Please, we have thrashed this severally. This is at best debatable. As you have been honest enough to note, it could be minister (aren’t we all?) or servant. And like I have often said, whether elder, deacon, minister or any other office/function/role, it’s about service. Net court, net out.

Lastly, there is what I call a Converse Principle in interpreting the scriptures.  This works in cases where:

- it seems one gender is being addressed (Converse: the other gender is equally implied)
- blessings are attached to fulfilling certain conditions (Converse: curses for not fulfilling the same) etc

So? It doesn’t apply in every instance and not here.

Using this principle therefore, it follows that for a married female (she may actually be a single) to be an elder or a deacon, she must be married to one man i.e. not be a polygamist, among other qualifications.

As above, wrong premise, wrong principle, wrong scripture.

God bless
TV

Are we here discussing the difference between your posts, or you're assuming both of you have been saying the same things? My point is that he has stated clearly again and again and repeatedly that he is not arguing "universal gender equality" - and then again he has clearly stated his views that he sees a balance in the VARIOUS LEADRSHIP roles between men and women!!  How else do you want him to state them??

I read the definition of "Leadership" and it basically means  "to care". Nobody has denied that women have ministry roles (or gifts, or callings or roles). Ministry is service, service is caring. If all you want to do is come up in here and play to the gallery, just say so

I made my point about "leadership", it's use and defining it for the contecxt of this discussion as pointless. It's a fudge, so you can appear to be saying what you know is not actually true, whilst being able to claim fidelity to scripture.

Plus you failed to answer my questions and of course re-introduce your new age speak. "Balance in leadership".  

I f leadership is to "care for" ~ A husband and wife balance caring for their children, does that obviate the authority as divinely instituted? Do leadership as care and balance in leadership actually mean anything, when noting that all the members have some ministerial capacity. You are really good at saying quite a lot with bugger all meaning.

Like I said answer the questions. Your bogus and convoluted shimmying around "leadership" and "balance", expose you for what you are, a vacillator.

Can women be elders? Yes or no. Simple.

Your argument has been that leadership in the church is exclusively reserved to men - and that idea is not what Scripture teaches at all! Is that so difficult for you to read, TV01? Coming back again and again to forcefully read your own assertions into his post is quite unhealthy - especially when he has reminded you again and again that he was not arguing what you misread into his posts.

More of the same. I did not introduce that term "leadership", and I used it in order to progress the discussion. I have never said "leadership" ( and not even by your definition) is reserved for men. I said ion my last post. That word "leadership" is not really a biblical term (which you glaringly overlooked). Further, there are more than enough terms in the bible from which to draw and upon which to base our discussions and inferences thereto.

Typical new-age, politic-speak. Re-engineer terms and meanings in order force a paradigm shift. Who shepherds? Elders. So again, can women be elders?

I've said repeatedly and will again, a church is shepherded by elders/bishops/pastors/presbyters or any such word of your choosing (plurality. Women are not permitted under STP to become elders. End of story. Who shepherds? Elders. So once again, can women be elders?

Keep whinging about balance and leadership.

So, because Paul in his foundational (Apostolic role) role  cared about the churches, therefore Apostles have a role to play in a mature congregation? No decent expalnation or outline. No insight as to lines of authority. Surely you can do better?

Listen carefully;

The Apostles & prophets founded/established the church on Christ as Cornerstone. Once the church is established there is no requirement for the Apostolic.

Paul along with his band of merry men were instituting the blueprint. It's why Timothy and Titus were told to raise up qualified men to run the churches that had been planted. At the time of true (and early) Apostolic work, there were simply no/not enough suitably qualified men. It's why I continually make the distinction "mature".

In due course a congregation matures and all that is required are SQ brethren to carry out the functions. Pauls "care" was in the fact that he mid-wifed and nursed the church/churches in infancy. He had to to and fro while he did this.  And epistles help clarify. Once established with suitably qualified males, it runs as a congregation of self contained mature brethren, with no need for oversight from anyone. Oversight was only required and in an Apostolic sense, as congregations were yet to fully mature. So the obvious thing to do is look to one with the blueprint.

It's the same blueprint we should employ today, except some would sneak in with new-age, move with the times, realpolitik, dialectal hogwash. And talk about leadership and balance.

Trying to push every non-related scripture to force-fit your erroneous notions, will not wash. Scripture does not contradict.

If you want to discuss, then do so, if you want to fudge, vacillate and obfuscate, ditch faith for politics.

God bless all who love Him in truth
TV

@ Stimulus, we are still eagerly awaiting you reply, be that rebuttal, concurrence or deviation.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1274410#msg1274410 date=1183980155]The point is simple enough: don't read issue into his posts - especially where he has again and again stated his points clearly enough.[/quote]Really? Ok, please outline the differences between my position and that of "Stimulus" if you can.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1274410#msg1274410 date=1183980155]It was necessary to define such terms - and he has done so, especially what he meant by leadership. You keep coming back arguing issues without clearly defining what you're talking about![/quote]Ask and I will answer. Repeatedly and in every post. I won't refer back. I am happy to repeatedly state my position if necessary, as I did in my last post.

Can a woman lead a church? My answer is no. First, because one person (all things being equal) does not shepherd a church and secondly eldership is open to men only. Quite simple really.

No re-defining or re-engineering words. Just a simply stated position.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1274410#msg1274410 date=1183980155]We have all been following the arguements; and I was beginning to be a bit concerned that you deliberately were repeating yourself again and again about the same thing, even though he pointed you back to his earlier statements, providing links thereto.[/quote]Making myself clear. If "Stimulus would do likewise, without obfuscating, we'd make progress.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1274410#msg1274410 date=1183980155]If you were actually discussing issues, I still haven't read your answers on some of the questions he offered - so I don't see how you could be asking others to do what you have not attempted.[/quote]Ask away.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1274410#msg1274410 date=1183980155]Again, let me quote you: "Saying what you are not arguing for is not the same as saying what you are arguing for" - and that is what you have done with the appeal for you to discuss Ephesians 4:11. At least, stimulus has offered something on that chapter, and unless you're now coming back to say that apostleship has nothing to do with leadership in the CHURCH, then we can simply just end the argument here.[/quote]1. You are not quoting me.
2. No one has explained how Ephesians 4:11 articulates into congragational activity.
3. No, apostleship has nothing to do with shepherding a mature local church.
4. If you think it has, please expalin how.

Stop shadow boxing around "Leadership". It's a cop-out. Where and how does the bible ever use or define it? Interprete scripture on it's own terms. You've used that as the crux of your arguement and when I attempted to meet you where you chose to stand, you came back with "there is nothing like overall leadership". Fine, answer the questions

~ Can women be elders?
~ If they can, can she have authority over her husband in church if he is not?
~ If there is equality how can usurpation be on gender terms?
~ If there is equality, why are there restrictions on teaching.

~ If you are not pushing UGE in the church (as I believe TayoD is), what exactly are you arguing for? To spend pages telling us that women can minister is pointless. If you want to sit on the fence, do so. Don't muddle the discussion. Or at least clearly state where you stand. TayoD did so when he rejoined. "I agree with this, I don't agree with this, and here's why".

Analytical:
Please oblige me and this board a very straight answer to this: Can a woman be a deacon? This is either a 'Yes' or 'No'.

No!

God bless
TV

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1272529#msg1272529 date=1183906878]I think it is rather unfair of you to be repeatedly misreading issues into stimulus' posts. He has consistently stated that he was not arguing for "universal gender equality", and for you to once again forcefully read that into his posts is unhealthy.[/quote]"Stimulus" please advise what your are arguing for or against, as I am finding it increasingly difficult to discern. If UGE is not your point, what is? Can a woman lead a church? My answer is no. First, because one person (all things being equal) does not shepherd a church and secondly eldership is open to men only. Quite simple really.

Polemics around "leadership capacity", "chauvinism", "male-ego" and the like do not make for coherently or succinctly stated facts or positions.

Let "Stimulus" state his position and points very clearly. Saying what you are not arguing for is not the same as saying what you are arguing for.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1272529#msg1272529 date=1183906878]Perhaps you might help this discussion by providing answers to the same question you're asking. At least, I've read some offers in stimulus' posts on that Scripture, and I haven't seen where you attempted it even once. Even when he offered to ask how many apostles you read in the NT, you gave no answers until he obliged to open another thread for your sake.[/quote]Au contraire. I don't see that Eph 4:11 has any bearing on our discussion on church structure and leadership. If anyone thinks it does, I can only invite them to outline how and why. So if anyone thinks it does, please do so.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1272529#msg1272529 date=1183906878]Asking others to do what you haven't dared attempt is no way to discuss a topic, TV01. Let's read something more worthwhile, please. [/quote]Agreed. I answer questions as posed. If one submits something, they should at least explain it's relevance or be willing to explain in a little more depth to those of us who may be too limited to see what is glaringly obvious to everyone else.

@ TayoD,

I was so puzzled by your reading "breaking down the middle wall of seperation" as the elimination of gender difference, that I went away to re-read, thinking I must have missed something? I see no way that scripture could be read to infer that.

[quote author=N-joy link=topic=61492.msg1273624#msg1273624 date=1183953621]You sabi talk, i sey move with the time, gone are de days women were seen and not heard, now we don get voice you dey fear. Women na natural born leaders na we born pikin and na we raise them with little help from de man. Please make you go read your Bible and make you tell me again why oh why woman no fit lead for church.[/quote]I am not pushing any of the things you have decried, nor denied any of the qualities you have lauded. Only that women are not permitted eldership roles in a church (all things being equal).

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1274049#msg1274049 date=1183973488]I think it would help also to have a clear understanding of what leadership points to. [/quote]So why don't you take your own advice and submit something

God bless.
TV

@ TayoD et al,

I've been away for a bit, so am a little behind. I will attempt to catch up in the one post. Let me begin by claryfying a few things;

1. I do not say all men are the head of all women. A husband is the head of His wife, his family.
2. I never said that women must be always silent in church (who can shut them up anyewhere ?).

You join Stimulus et al in trying to shoe-horn the functions of Ephesians 4:11 into a regular congregational setting. Again, I invite any of you to explicate exactly how Apostles and Prophets articulate within the pastor/teacher/deacon roles of a mature local church.

I am not placing anybody's wife under authority to anyone but her husband. However, in a congregational settings and within the limits of church authority all are subject to the authority of the eldership. Said authority does not impinge on that instituted in the home.

If Christ is not the head of the Christian home, how do you articulate home authority and church rule? Would it be fair to say that you see the home as subject to the church?

Additionally, please explain who has authority over children, if indeed the only three headships are Christ/Church, Husband/Wife and God/Christ. Would Christ be the Head of all mankind, or just believers?

You have still failed to deal with the setting of both 1 Cor 11 & 14 and 1 Tim 2. Are you insistent that it's home, church or both?

If you are championing universal equality of the genders in congregational activity, you have to explain away any stipulations that restricts women from speaking or limits certain offices and functions to men, most notably the outline in the Pastoral epistles to Timothy & Titus.

Stimulus has repeatedly claimed universality with "buts". But they cannot teach, but they cannot usurp authority. Weakness in the positons of both are revealed when

1. TayoD says usurping authority is over husbands only. Fine, what of the teaching restriction? Also if a woman is elder in church and can teach (as you claim is permissable), whilst her husband is a mere bench-warmer, surely she has authority over him in church. So again, how can she be usurping him?

2. And Stimulus says universal gender equality "but" cannot teach or usurp authority. If it's UGE, as I have said, usurping would be on the basis of role and not gender.

If they are equal in church, there can be no usurping authority, and women should be permitted to teach or rule just as men do. Which of course means a woman should be able to be elder over her husband in church.

God bless
TV

[quote author=N-joy link=topic=61492.msg1272027#msg1272027 date=1183880999]We got to move with the time[/quote]Really? Why is that? Is God or His Word a bit dated? Or maybe The Lord is not cutting edge enough?

[quote author=N-joy link=topic=61492.msg1272027#msg1272027 date=1183880999]I see nothing wrong attending a church led by a woman.[/quote]The discussion is to make a case based on scripture. We all have feelings about ecerything, but what does the Bible say? What is God's heart on this matter?

[quote author=N-joy link=topic=61492.msg1272027#msg1272027 date=1183880999]A woman can give just as good as a man.[/quote]Venus Williams was lauding equal prize monety at Wimbledon. Funny how everyone overlooks tyhe fact that the work do 60% of the work the men do? If of course there was just the one open draw, women would'nt gain entry except as wild cards !

God bless
TV