Cheryl

Terri,

You said: “If you had been allowed the time and space to prove one point convincingly then the rest of your apologetics would have been more credible”

I fully agree with you. Matt seemed to view me not so much as a Christian to agree to disagree with, but a person holding a heretical teaching. In fact that is what his web site says about the women’s issue. The teaching that a woman can be a Pastor is a heresy. That is a very strong word and it is something that divides Christians. How can we say that a Christian holds to heresy and still call them our brother/sister in Christ? A heretic is to be exposed and shunned.

Another thing that Matt constantly said was that I was being influenced by the world. I should have asked him where he gets that from? If I am going to the bible for my understanding on the women’s issue, then how can I be influenced by the world?

Yet it is odd in that the in the majority of the third world, women are kept silent and they are not to teach men. Hmmmm…. is this view not part of the worldly way? And I am the one influenced by the world???

Justa Berean,

You are right in that 1 Timothy 3 lists characteristics of those who are mature in the faith and who may be appointed as an elder – a mature believer. For one to charge a woman with sin for being a Pastor when they do not charge an unmarried man with sin is just plain prejudice. Either we are going to be consist and make every one of the qualities as requirements or we can see that “must be” is talking about qualities that are evident “if” the elder is married and “if” they have children. Otherwise we have Paul contradicting himself when he tells us that unmarried people have more time to serve God. So the ones who have the least time (married men with children and a job!) are the ONLY ones who are allowed to serve the congregation as an overseer? One can have all the necessary characteristics and choose to be single if we understand that the list is “normative” and not a check list that requires a person to have children, etc.

Under Much Grace,

Thank you for your insight. I too got the impression that Matt was frustrated and I don’t know if I imagined it or not but over the phone on my end it sounded like he was tapping his fingers on the desk like he was very impatient at the conversation.

You said: “This was a good learning experience for me. I tend to become too emotionally extroverted or collapsed when people start with the insults.”

I too can be very distracted by insults and this was a very good learning experience for me too. What helped me is that I have heard Matt do this many times before so I was prepared. What also helped is my very great love for women who have been called by God to serve in the body of Christ in teaching the word of God in the pulpit or any other place. The authority is with the word of God not in the messenger. The Holy Spirit gifts each one of us and we have authority to use our gifts but the idea that there is an “authority” in the pulpit or in the preacher is foreign to scripture.

justa berean,

You said: “May I recommend that you ask God how to respond without letting him steer you quite so much. Perhaps, instead of responding to some of his interruptions, you can do a sort of ignore with an “OK, but as I was saying” or something to that effect. There has to be a way that you can finish your thought patterns in spite of his trying to cut you short all the time.”

I accept that suggestion and will be more than willing to stay away from his rabbit trails. I really do want the Lord to shine through me in love. This was my very first debate and although I have listened to many, many debates, I can see how hard it is to get your point across when you are allowed to speak. I think what I need to do is summarize my point first and then when I am allowed to fill it in. At least that way I get my point through at the beginning. Matt just is not going to give me time to construct my argument as I have in this blog. A debate is a completely “different animal” and I believe that as I give myself to the molding of the Holy Spirit that I will learn and grow in this way.

Thanks again for such a good suggestion!

Cheryl

teknomom,

Yes, what a great reminder about the second witness and the “sign”. Thanks!!

I didn’t want to get into Genesis 3 with Matt on the first debate because we would then be on to others things, but I am willing to continue the debate until all the scriptures are covered. That may take many, many debates to do this.

I got a call back from the producer of Matt’s radio show and she said that everyone in the studio was very interested in this debate and they are excited about listening to next week. That means to me that is Matt is willing to continue, I am willing to continue and we can “have at it” and get through all of Matt’s objections to women in ministry. Maybe these subsequent debates will bear much fruit and getting past the first jitters of the fear of live radio will help me to keep my mind in gear for what will come next.

Thanks for staying with the debate and listening to it all. I can use all the support I can get as I get raked over the coals. I am willing to take anything that Matt anger will throw my way for the sake of the women in his audience who need to know the truth about God’s view of women, authority and teaching the truth of the bible to men.

teknomom,

Thanks for all the great points! I have to continue to work on setting an outline in my head so I can follow through with all the points in the “heat” of the battle. It ain’t so easy when you are up against someone who doesn’t want to let you talk and keeps interrupting you. Several times I tried to follow a line of reason and I was stopped. Another time Matt desperately didn’t even want me to read a scripture about how “anyone” can mean male or female. He tried hard to say that “anyone” as singular masculine means only males and I was able only to read one scripture to prove him wrong. I had many more, plus I had references from respected lexicons that proved him wrong, but once again the one who has the mike is the one who ultimately calls the shots and who can shoot down the messenger. It is my sincere desire to remain calm and respectful. If I tried to bully my way through the conversation I could have gotten more points through, but then I would have lost my goal of being respectful. I believe with this debate I got further than I had even hoped and this was evidenced by all of Matt’s groaning and sighs. His frustration with me was evident.

Let’s see if I can get him past the groans and sighs for the next debate. We will certainly come back to the “authority” issue as that is key to the debate although I want to tackle the authority issue from 1 Timothy 2. This passage pulls back the curtain on the root of the prohibition and without 1 Timothy 2 as ammunition, 1 Timothy 3 is nothing less than a shadow, a “normative” according to Matt’s words and not a prohibition.

Joe,

Thanks for being respectful!

You said:

Respectfully, you’re problem is that you arrived at your conclusion first and then you went to the Bible to interpret passages to fit your conclusion. You read meaning in to passages that are not there. This is called eisegesis and it is wrong.

How would you know that I arrived at my conclusion first and then went to the Bible to interpret the passage? If you listened carefully, I said that I was challenged that women weren’t allowed to teach the bible to men and I went to the bible to find out what it said and what it meant. Since I didn’t start with a conclusion, please tell me what you used to make this judgment call?

Also you said that I read meaning into a passage that isn’t there but you didn’t give an example. Please explain what you mean otherwise your comment isn’t helpful to us on this discussion.

I agree that eisegesis is wrong. What evidence do you have that I was doing that? I think I went a long way to prove that Matt was doing the eisegesis. Matt reads “elders” into 1 Timothy 2:12 saying that this verse forbids women from being elders yet the verse does not use the term elder, pastor or overseer. It merely says that “a woman” is not allowed to “teach” or “authenteo” “a man”. That is the simple words without the eisegesis or “spin” that Matt was trying to add.

Hi Kerryn,

Thank you for your support! Yes, I did get a lot of hits today, but they rolled right off my back. I’ve had worse from the JW’s. I understand why Matt does this to a point. It is a way of deflecting the questions that he cannot answer. My point was to love him enough as a brother in Christ so that in the future when we are on the same page regarding women’s gifts in the church then I won’t have any regrets. If it is possible to live without regrets, then that is what Christ-likeness means to me.

Teknomom,

Thank you for summarizing the points and your thoughts! I had a stack of notes regarding which way to go and I wanted to get 1 Timothy 3 out of the way first. I was nice to see Matt half-heartedly agree that 1 Timothy 3 is “normative” not a check list. So “if” the overseer is a man, “if” he is married, and “if” he has children then all of the characteristics should apply.

I had so many people praying for me that I was really pumped tonight. I didn’t think we would even get to 1 Timothy 2 tonight but it so happened that we got to the meaning of the scripture just when time ran out. This should give Matt time to research my position for the next debate on September 26th, 2007. It will be interesting to see what he says since he apparently has not been able to answer my exegesis since he received the DVD set a year and a half ago. He did say that he never watched it but that isn’t true since he wrote me a week later and threw out a few insults on parts of the DVD set. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is getting older like me and must have forgotten that he watched it and wrote me that it was “slick”.

The audio of the debate will go up very shortly.

Under Much Grace,

Thank you for your prayers! I do need extra grace from the Lord tonight and I trust he will give me that blessing.

Thanks Kerryn. I would have missed that link. I am going to post here the direct link to the article:

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/09/to-whom-will-some-leaders-ultimately.html

CP,

Thanks for your comments. You may need to read the post again if you found it complex. It actually is very straightforward and plain.

I do agree with you that both sinned in the garden. After all God said not to do something and both of them did. I don’t think that anyone is saying that Eve didn’t sin and I certainly am not saying that. What I am saying is that scripture tells us unequivocally that Adam is the one blamed for bringing sin into the world and not Eve. The Bible also tells us that we inherit our sin from Adam. We also see that the Messiah had to come from the woman and not the man. We also see the bible telling us about the motives of Eve and of Adam. What does this all mean? We must draw our conclusions from what the Bible actually says and not how we feel about sin.

The “puzzle” so to speak is that the Messiah had to come from Adam as the kinsman redeemer yet through Adam sin comes. So how does the Messiah come from Adam and not come from the sin line of Adam? God tells us in Genesis 3. The Messiah will come from the woman and we know that the woman came from the man before the man sinned. The man’s sin of rebellion was not passed on to Eve.

The whole matter of sin also comes down to judging motive along with the sin. Eve died for her own sin but her motive was not rebellion. She sinned because of deception so it was impossible for her to pass on the inherited sin of rebellion. Now you and I? We have the inherited sin of rebellion and we struggle with it every day. I praise God that he found a way out for us so that we could have a sinless Messiah who could take away the sin of the world.

You may need to sleep on this one and come back to it and see if it makes more sense another day.

As far as the Trinity, I am not sure what you mean. What conclusion did I try to draw about the Trinity from my diagrams?

Desi,

Thanks for giving Tarun that information. I am sure he will find it very helpful!

Tarun,

As I said most of this can be discussed in the marriage post, so I won’t answer in this post. A couple of quick comments regarding what you said and we shall both leave this for the next set:

You said: (1)Sarah “needs” Abraham’s consent to Banish the slave woman which is why she asks him to do so and doesnt do so herself regardless of his consent.

Sarah doesn’t “need” Abraham’s consent at all. Hagar was Sarah’s maid so Sarah can do what she wants with her own maid. However while Hagar was Sarah’s maid, she was also Abraham’s concubine and because Sarah had herself “given” Hagar to Abraham, she now belonged to him.

Secondly you said:

(5)That’s how the system is set up to work. obedience to the Husband is a faith proposition and the “Just shall walk by faith”

Scripture doesn’t say obedience is what a wife is to offer. She is to submit as he is to sacrifice. Yet a wife can obey her husband if she asks her to do something just as a husband can obey his wife as she asks him to do something. This is biblical and to disregard Abraham’s obedience is to disregard Abraham putting his wife and God first in his life over his concubine and his son.

See you on the other marriage posts when they come up. I hope you don’t leave and not come back because it will be a lively discussion, I am sure!

Tarun,

Two equal partners listening to and preferring one another – that’s marriage.

God commanded Abraham to obey Sarah and if God’s command to obey is something that makes one the follower and the one obeyed makes them the leader, then we see that other side of the coin in Genesis.

Gen 21:12 ESV But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named.

The word translated “do” in “Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you” is the Hebrew word shama and it means to obey. God told Abraham to obey Sarah.

There is much more to be said, but I don’t think this is the post to do it on since most people don’t read the comments on an older post. I have a post or two left to do on the issue of spiritual gifts, maybe a post on the debate with Matt Slick that I will be doing next week on the issue of women teaching the bible to men and then I want to move on to the issue of marriage and how that affects the ability for women to minister. If you can be patient, I think it would be better to answer these questions when everyone gets to read them and can participate in the discussion. That would be most helpful to all.

I do not know how quick I will get to the issue of marriage but it will be the next big issue on this blog so if you could copy your comments here and post them on that blog topic, I am certain it will be a lively discussion.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Brother Tarun,

You said:

When Romans 13:1 says “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” Would’nt it be right to say that the “Governing authority” plays the lead role. I’d like you to make the difference between obeying the law of the land that has been set up by the leader of the land and saying that to follow the law of the land in totality is idolatory. It is an authority structure set up by God for our benefit.

Actually I wouldn’t say anything of the sort. Obeying the law over us that has been set up by God is not idolatry. Idolatry is when we set something up as God and give devotion to a thing or person as God (or god).

You asked:

In the situation immediately above who would you say is the leader – me as a Godfearing citizen or the Head of State who is creating the rules I follow ?

The law of the land is our governing authority plain and simple. We cannot just make up our own rules. We are to obey unless the human law overrides God’s law and then we are required to disobey human law makers.

You said:

Now apply the same principle to Ephesians 5:22- 24

My friend, you cannot take two unrelated passages and make an application between the two. Ephesians is not talking about a law or governing authority. That would be completely reading into the text.

You said:

Can you still say that this scripture “5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 5:23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body.” does not give the Husband the mantle of leadership and the final word(which the Husband is accountable to God for)

This scripture says nothing about the husband being the leader nor is God telling the husband to take authority over his wife. Neither does it say that the husband is accountable to God for the final word. Each of us are accountable in exactly the same way. If that is not true, then please show me from scripture where it is not true.

Lastly you quoted:

1 Peter 3:5 For in the same way the holy women who hoped in God long ago adorned themselves by being subject to their husbands, 3:6 like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so.****

My dear brother, this is not telling us that Sarah called Abraham her God or that she treated him as such. The term “lord” has several meanings, but the one which would be applicable here can be found in Strong’s concordance. It says it means:

by implication Mr. (as a respectful title)

So Sarah was calling Abraham what in that day was a respectful title. I often call my husband “sir” and I do it out of respect for him. That may be odd in this day and age, but I do like honoring him in every way that I can. Wives are told to give their husbands respect and Sarah did just that. Today “lord” is not commonly said as a way of showing respect. But Sarah absolutely and in no way committed idolatry by treating Abraham as her God.

The problem that you have to come face to face with is that scripture never even once tells the husband to take any kind of authority over the wife. Scripture also does not tell the husband that he can command the wife nor does it give him the right to act as a governing authority commanding her to obey his law. Instead scripture commands him to love her and to give up his own desires for her. When he puts her first, he is showing love. When she puts him first, she is showing respect.

The ESV shows this so clearly when it says in Romans 12:19:

Rom 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Honor and respect is to be given to both and putting each other first is God’s way.

Don,

Regarding the unity of the faith – I do think that God has promised in his word that we will have unity before Jesus comes. In Ephesians 4:11 God’s gifts are given for equipping, building up and bringing about unity (verse 13)

Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

If it was only a unity that was attained when Jesus comes, why would we need the gift of Pastor and teacher now for equipping and building the body? We would all be equipped and built up and unified when Jesus comes, right? However, and I humbly say that I could be wrong, but I do believe that the verses all go together and the gifts and equipping are what will bring about unity – not the coming of Jesus. What the coming of Jesus will bring about is our perfection. When all of us are functioning as we should, then the functioning in the body will cause growth and unity. I personally believe that the fullness of unity is waiting for the full acceptance of women’s ministry and gifts (and we can include the acceptance of anyone who has been shunned and disregarded in the body of Christ). What will be the catalyst that will bring this about? I don’t really know but perhaps persecution will be used. When we are all persecuted, we will stop fighting each other 🙂

Regarding the one baptism – I do believe you have it right. What joins us together in the body is the Holy Spirit’s work that brings us into relationship with God (Jesus) and each other.

Under Much Grace,

Blessing dear sister for posting the links to these two films. It is so amazing to me that there are attacks and pressures coming from so many places. Many want to try to lump godly Christian women who flow in their spiritual gifts together with worldly feminists who have a chip on their shoulder against men. And the second clip seemed somewhat surreal. Daughters staying at home with their fathers instead of seeking for individual maturity just seems out of place in this day and age where women are being given more and more freedom to excel at whatever they want to do. I did notice that every woman in the clip had long hair. I wonder about the message this proclaims. Do women who stay at home with their fathers under their father’s rule even as adult women, show their badge of submission to male rule by long hair? I for one am so glad that God doesn’t have such a rule.

Freedom and maturity in Christ means looking to the Lord for the direction of our lives, not as adult women looking to the decision making of our Fathers. I really like how the apostle Paul tells us to be mature and quit acting like little children. I see that as for all of us – not just the men!

Excellent, Don! Thanks!

I have just been informed about a new bulletin board where egalitarians would be free to speak about women’s issues and not be shot down. Paula has started this board at http://theology.fether.net/forums/index.php

It appears that I will be barred from commenting on the complementarian board called Worthy Boards. It is so sad to see Christians stopping others from hearing the other side on secondary issues. At least one person has been asked to stop linking to this blog so it gives me cause for thought. I must be doing something right if I am considered that much of a threat!

Don,

Thank you for your words of wisdom. I take that “word” to heart and I am willing to “take an arrow” for sure. I am humbled and very grateful that you are willing to pray for me. I really do need that undergirding!

Matt is the founder of CARM.

Yes, I do know about Worthy Boards and how they have removed the thread that I had been posting on. Apparently they think that I might be able to influence others and they can’t allow that. It is a secondary issue of doctrine, yet they have made it a primary issue – an issue of orthodoxy. It is so sad when Christians black list other Christians because they don’t agree on the secondary issues. Jesus talked about severe persecution that would come from those who claimed to have the true faith.

While there is no one that is looking to kill egalitarians, there is a tremendous persecution that seeks to shut up anyone who speaks out for women. The one comfort I have is that persecution is to be expected and we are to endure it knowing that God will make it right in the end.

2Ti 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

Under Much Grace,

Thank you! Hey did you know that Matt has a copy of my DVD for a year now and the only comment he had on the material was that it was “slick”. Unfortunately he meant that in a pejorative way. Yet he still hasn’t given me any objections to the material in the DVDs. I guess that I will get more out of him on his radio show, Lord willing.

Greg,

Thanks friend! Knowing that I had so many people behind me is a very wonderful feeling!

Teknomom,

Yes, you guessed it – I am “little” David. Sure go ahead and email me your words of wisdom.

Don,

I will put a link to the debate on the blog later so you can hear it after the fact. Also you points were well-taken and they will be things I will ponder on.

Thanks for your prayers! I know I will need them.

Tarun,

Again, welcome and thanks for posting.

You said: I was not trying to imply that the Husband “is” the Saviour/Lord and God of his wife.That is a role that only Christ can fulfill. However even though he “is not” what Christ is in full, his wife is expected to have an attitude toward him “as if he were”.

Actually that is pure and simple idolatry. Wives are not to look on their husbands as Lord and God. Can you imagine if we take this explanation and use it for a carved idol? We could then say that the idol is not God nor is the idol Lord, but we can have an attitude towards the idol “as if it were Lord and God”. Do you see how idolatrous this is? No, my friend, Jesus is our God and there is to be no other Lord or God besides him.

You said: We are not inputing everything that Jesus is to the Husband, what we are doing is defining the attitude a wife should have towards her Husband and scripture does tell us so.
***Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands “as” to the Lord ***

Scripture is not saying here that wives are to submit to their husbands as if they are their Lord and God. Scripture rather defines it’s own terminology:

Col 3:23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,
Col 3:24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.

The Amplified Bible says:

Col. 3:23, 24 Whatever may be your task, work at it heartily (from the soul), as [something done] for the Lord and not for men, Knowing [with all certainty] that it is from the Lord [and not from men] that you will receive the inheritance which is your [real] reward. [The One Whom] you are actually serving [is] the Lord Christ (the Messiah).

The husband is not the replacement for God, but honoring the husband is something that a wife does that is actually done for Christ’s sake and will rewarded by Christ.

You said: “in the same way that the body of Christ looks up to Jesus as the High priest (being priests themselves)so also should a wife look up to her Husband as her head not considering him to be “the” High priest but definitely a priest who has the calling to lead and she as a priest with a calling to follow.”

My point is that this isn’t scriptural. Nowhere is this view found in scripture. One can only get the idea of the husband to be considered a higher priest than the wife nor can we get the teaching that the husband is called to lead and she is called to follow. I know that this is tradition, but it is a tradition that has no foundation in scripture. Give me just one verse that says that a man is to “lead” his wife. It just isn’t there. When women follow this teaching they are prone to stay back and not take any responsibility for their own spiritual growth. It is too easy to rely on someone else when scripture says that we are all to grow up and be mature Christians trained to make wise decisions.

You said: Yes I am called to give myself for her and I will or atleast die trying. I do not mean a sacrifice which leads to salvation for my wife as I know it will not, but sacrifice in as much as is required even unto death putting her before myself which by the way is a given when you are talking about the love Jesus had for the church and incidentally is also a parallel calling for the Christian, Revelation 12:11c “and they loved not their lives unto the death.”

I think it is a wonderful thing to sacrifice yourself for your wife. Many godly men do that as an act of love. However what many men mean by this is that they sacrifice of themselves to make all the decisions for their wives. They are to lead her and make her decisions for her and this leads the woman to remaining childlike and dependent. When the man is willing to lead in love and sacrifice himself so that he allows her to make decisions too, then that is a true and godly sacrifice. Somehow I am not sure that is what you are saying.

You said: “I would say that scripture does not say that he is responsible but that he is called to (there is a difference)lead her spiritual walk upwards, refer below

Ephesians 5:27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.36 5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies”

Please note the very clear “In the same way”

We understand scripture by reading the entire text and not isolating one scripture. Look again at the verse and the one following.

Eph 5:28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
Eph 5:29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

Scripture is talking about nourishing and cherishing the physical. It is talking about loving their wives “as their own bodies” and is not talking about presenting their wives to God spiritually. While Christ cherishes and looks after our spiritual welfare so the husband is to cherish and look after the wife’s physical (and emotional) welfare. If this scripture meant that the husband is responsible to present their wives to God pure spiritually, then we have a big problem. Every doctrine in scripture is repeated so that it is verified. Where does scripture ever repeat the thought that a man is responsible for his wife’s spirituality? Also every example that we have regarding a husband and wife brought before the Lord for judgment, the husband and wife are judged individually and no husband is ever said to be responsible for the wife’s actions. If this is the only scripture that you can pull out to verify that husbands are responsible for their wives, then you are left with an unverified witness of this “doctrine”. No other doctrine is every left without a second witness.

You said: “The husband is not held responsible for his wifes decisions, neither are wives allowed to be irresponsble in following the lead of their Husband. It is a question of who leads and who follows if its quite obvious the Husband is guiding the wife the wrong way then she is expected to adhere to the Word of God as a priest in her own right and follow the leading of the Spirit.”

I do understand that this is what you believe but the problem is that you don’t have any verses to prove that this is what the scripture teaches. No where is the husband ever told to guide the wife, or take authority over her. Each of us are required to hear from and follow the Holy Spirit for ourselves. If the woman only hears from the Holy Spirit when her husband is going in a wrong direction, then she is inferior in the body of Christ. No, my friend, the woman is expected to grow up and mature in her own faith and her own ability to hear from God.

You said: “However if it is for e.g something like choosing a church when both have different preferences and both churches seem good I believe that the Husband’s prayerful choice should prevail.”

The wife certainly can submit to her husband’s decision here or the husband can sacrifice his preference for the wife’s preference 🙂 That is sacrifice in action!

You said: Let me put it this way – when you are “married” we are required to be mature Christians and follow the Lord “together”

Togetherness is wonderful and this is the goal. However this doesn’t mean that the wife isn’t to hear from God equally with her husband. If both of them are equally submitted to God, he should be speaking to both of them so their decisions will be much easier.

You said: Yes, he does not give him the mandate of a priest who makes the spiritual decisions for his wife in those words exactly but what he does say is ***Eph5:24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.***

However what does this submission look like? The wife submits by honoring her husband and the husband sacrifices by giving up his own personal choices to sacrifice for her. This is submission and sacrifice in action. Anything else is taking authority over another person’s will when there should be sacrifice instead. When they both work together in equal honor, it is an easy thing to work things out.

You said: “We all have a free will and Jesus does not make our spiritual decisions for us, however He does let us know what His opinion is and I think that we would be wise to follow – would’nt you ?”

What I have found from scripture and personal experience is that Jesus does not always give us any more of his opinion than what is given in scripture. He gives guidelines and then he expects us to “work out our salvation” by taking the guidelines that he has set and deciding for ourselves how best to honor him with our mature decisions. After all in the next life we will be required to judge the world and the angels so we need to all learn how to make our own decisions here in this life. In the next life, there will be no relationship of husband and wife so the wife will be on her own to judge angels and will the men also be on their own. Maturity is the mandate and wise decisions by all is the growing experience.

You said: “(d)The husband is expected to provide leadership in their spiritual walk together

I think it would be safe to say that in the context of the home the Husband is the priest.
Please note that I am not taking away the wife’s calling as a priest but when we use the term “Husband is the priest of the home” what we are implying is that he is the spiritual head in the context of his household.”

No it is not scriptural to say that the Husband is the priest of the home. This is a cultural understanding, but it does not come from scripture. In scripture, the wife is also referred to as manager of the home. 1 Timothy 5:14 says in the Amplified Bible:

So I would have younger [widows] marry, bear children, guide the household, [and] not give opponents of the faith occasion for slander or reproach.

The Greek word for “guide” is oikodespoteo and it means (in Strong’s) to be the “head” of the family and the WordStudy Dictionary adds:

“the master of the house To be master of a house exercising authority, with the emphasis on absolute rule, as of a despot”

No, my friend, there is no one “head” of the family and no one priest of the family. This is just not scriptural.

We will be exploring this further at a later time as I will be posting on marriage and the women’s issue.

Blessings!

Justa Berean,

I have added this information to my post: You can listen to the program live on myfamilyradio.com Go to http://www.myfamilyradio.com/player.html and pick the link at the very bottom for “790 KSPD play outside of browser” The time is 6 – 7 pm Mountain time so that would work out to 7 – 8 pm Central, 8 – 9 pm Eastern and 5 – 6 pm Pacific.

Dusman,

Thank you so much for your prayers!

Guys, pass this around to anyone that you know who is interested in the women’s issue and pray that women will be set free from following tradition when God has called them to ministry for the body of Christ.

Don,

Here is what the Apostles thought was the qualification of one of the 12 Apostles:

Act 1:21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–
Act 1:22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

An Apostle (one of the twelve) certainly had to be a witness of His resurrection, but it wasn’t necessary for him to have been with them from the beginning. Paul says that he is an Apostle as one born out of time. He wasn’t with the other Apostles during the time that Jesus walked the earth, but he was a witness of the resurrection since he said that went to the third heaven and was instructed by Jesus himself.

I fully agree with you that the Apostles wouldn’t have considered a woman since women weren’t to be witnesses. Yet I believe that Jesus chose men to be the foundation (Jesus himself the cornerstone) that the church was built on. They were to give their lives to bring the gospel. I can’t tell you why this is so but I suspect it might have something to do with the first man, Adam, who brought sin into the world and Adam did not do anything to stop Eve from being deceived. Now men are given the opportunity to be a sacrificial foundation that men and women are to be built upon. That is my two cents worth and I could be wrong.

I have tried several times to buy Deborah Gill’s DVD but it is apparently out of stock on CBE. Not sure where else to buy it.

Interesting thing about the 12 Apostles – while the 11 Apostles thought they should appoint a replacement for Judas, their appointment didn’t count as Jesus himself appointed Paul and there are only 12 apostles in Rev. 21:14, not 13 so the Apostle’s choice didn’t make it.

Try as we might, God gifts are we are not in charge of his gifts. What we are to do is accept what God has provided and submit to the gifts that come from others. A gifted teacher cannot do his/her work unless people are willing to listen and learn. That comes through submission.

Dusman,

Thank you for the encouragement to read. I had only read the articles associated with the link and now I plan to dig in and read more. Thanks!