pinklight

The main point is not what was prohibited,

Right, and for me it is interesting to say the very least that the main point for gender hierarchalists is that women in general are being prohibited from having authority and teaching, in other words, it srikes me that the focus for them is a negative, not a positive. The second point for the gender hierarchalist is a positive for males – that they can have authority over females and teach without being restricted due to their gender. And these two ideas are very strange to me.
Who can deny that their focus is a prohibition for women (a negative)? And their is an obvious red flag for me.
What is it about negatives of all things that reel Christians in? I guess the flesh.

Would you please explain to me why this text says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Let’s start here:
The text prohibits “a woman” or a specific woman because Paul was addressing a specific situation that invloved one woman – “a woman” who he does not name. (There’s a reason why he does not name her) There’s no way (I gaurantee it) to draw out of the passage more than one woman or there is no way to prove that Paul was prohibiting more than one woman! Contextualy the only proof that exists from within the passage itself is that Paul was stopping ONE woman from teaching. There is not one person on the entire planet (!) that could PROVE that Paul was placing a prohibition on more than ONE woman. Is it possible though that he could have been prohibiting mre than one woman? Sure it is possible but ONLY OUTSIDE of what the passage itself provides! In other words, if the scripture and what it says is where the line is drawn then Paul only stopped one woman from teaching. Ofcourse we can draw lines all day outside of scripture, but what would be the point in that if Scripture is our bases of faith?

The immediate context – the verses prior to Paul’s prohibition speak of Godly women, opposed to the one woman who is decieved and should not teach. Paul didn’t stop the Godly women from teaching but only the one specific woman.

Pastortnew,

Hi Pastortnew!

lol 🙂

and sounds like you’ve a good head on your shoulders 🙂

Hi dejablue,

What if the family comes across an issue that the wife knows a specific solution for? Is it an error to just take her lead in the situation?

According to Grudem, first of all if the husband went with the wife’s solution it wouldn’t be considered “her lead” and secondly as long as the husband is the one making the final descion on what to do, no matter if it’s the wife’s solution or the husbands, it wouldn’t be an error because well, it’s the husband who is making the finale decision on what to do lol. Though to “just take her lead” would be an error on the husband’s part in Grudem’s book.

It feels like a waste of time for the wife to know the answer but then have to “give” the answer to her husband so that he has the “privilege” of making the decision to act on it.

lol But in this way the husband’s headship is upheld and he is honored in making the decision to act. lol

With God’s gifting and calling, you are attached to God’s power source and no weapon formed against you by the enemy will prosper unless you bend and give your back to the scarecrow.

It is so true that with God’s gift one is connected to His power. As long as one puts their faith in what God gives, no opposition can prosper against His gift – I know that to be a fact first hand.
I won’t tell my story but I had dealt with persecution, possibly even demonic warfare, evil to be sure, and confused individuals or Christians who persecuted and displayed dispicable behavior…and let me tell you, once I decided to stand on God’s gift through faith, the enemy ran to the other side of the country..
I wish I could tell my story but it’s a deep one..
Anyway, I just wanted to share the fact that it is very true if one puts their faith in God’s gift (whatever it may be), or stands on it firmly there is nothing the opposition can do to overcome it.
😀

When the shooters themselves claim to be the protectors of women, may the Lord help us all.

Yeah, Amen.

John Piper also states that women’s joy is to be in masculine Christianity

When uses phrases like “masculine Christianity” he is speaking of a masculine or different gospel is he not?

Why are comps working so hard to disempower women? The more women disempowered, the less light there is in the world. Well, certainly satan is happy with women being striped of their power because then he has less of a battle. It’s the woman he hates after all – Genesis tells us that, and Jesus called him a murderer for what he did to Eve (not Adam since Adam sinned willfully). Satan has to be behind the scenes somewhere in all of this “comp doctrine” because of what it does to women and since he hates the woman.

Piper needs a paradigim shift from the flesh (gender) to the Spirit on this matter but he seems to be getting more and more tangled up.

Poor Piper. He is lacking in the honor department. Really is sad.

There is no glory in taking from others for the benefit of oneself.

Oh, what makes things feel foggy sometimes is that a second witness which determines a fact can be given by the same person (like Paul in 2 Co 13:1) rather than a second person, hence my question on the Solomonn case. The same person giving a second testimony and acting as the second witness is the part that makes it harder for me to process, so I’m studying..

Yes, Cheryl what you’ve said is along the lines of what I was thinking also.
I had to ask to see if I’m understanding correctly the second witness ‘rule’. In this case ‘the second witness’ is what assured Solomon of who the real mother was, which is what he was seeking to determine. I feel more confident that I’m understanding the ‘rule’ knowing that you agree. I’m still studying the matter..may have more questions to come shortly! And thanks!

Hi Cheryl,
I’ve a question 🙂 on the story of Solomon and the two woman in 1 Kings 3:16-28, who both claimed that a baby was theirs. My question is would you agree that the first witness was the mother’s testimony that the baby belonged to her and the second witness was her telling the King to not cut the baby in two (her love for her baby) and rather have the baby be given to the other woman in order to save it’s life?

Thank you Cheryl. I’ve no response yet cause need to digest, process and meditate.., but I do have a response to this: “When I ask for the second witness, usually I never hear from them again.”
rotflol! That has got to be the funniest thing! lol!

Know this. If God has called you, the He knows that you can handle the pressure.

Bam! Nuff said! Encouraging words! 😀

Cheryl, am I understanding correctly that any fact, as in a sin (fact) or something that is of God and good (fact) must be established by two or three witnesses, not just sin when it comes to the subject of testimony.

Paul also places himself under this requirement as he establishes in 2 Cor. 13:1 that his third visit to the Corinthians meets the requirement of the two or three witnesses in order to establish a fact.

Cheryl, what fact was Paul establishing by using the two or three witness requirement? I’m interested in the idea that a FACT must be established by two or three witness. I understand that the testimony of two or three witnesses makes a testimony valid, but now I’m thinking on the idea of a fact being established by the same requirement.

“So is this maybe instead talking about the creation of the Church? I don’t know.”

This idea has crossed my mind before gengwall, but “every aner” doesn’t seem to restrict Christ being head of just the Church in this verse.

So is this maybe instead talking about the creation of the Church?

This has crossed my mind before gengwall, but ‘every aner’ doesn’t seem to restrict Christ being ‘head’ of the church only (not in this verse).

Thus CBMW can speak out of both sides of their mouth. They can deny in places that God is male, yet out of the other side of their mouth they affirm that He is masculine.

It’s craziness I tell ya.

Second thought: it is inherently illogical to claim that men and women are “spiritually equal human beings” as you quote CBMW, and follow that with the teaching that the woman has to be ruled spiritually by the man.

I actualy heard a comp say that it is not illogical. Though I never got to hear how they reasoned out that the man is the spiritual leader of the woman as ordained by God and yet the man and woman are spiritualy equal. I just couldn’t believe that I heard someone say that. How can the two ideas not contradict eachother? How can one not oppose the other? Anyone know?

Thank you much Cheryl 🙂

Hey everyone,

Was hoping anyone who can would pray for me for some direction. I’ve reached the end of my rope on something. I don’t know what to do and I need to know one way or the other. So any prayers would be very appreciated.
Specificaly, I’m looking for direction, to go forward with something or leave it alone. And as I said, end of my rope, so please help and pray for me that God provides the direction on what I should do because this is it.
Thanks for letting me post this prayer request here, Cheryl.
Anti-spam word “pain” How fitting.

Following that filling is a series of consequences or results. Notice that these results are all participles. They are not commands as some translation have made them out to be. They are participles – the result of the one command – “be filled”.

Ephesians 5:21 “be subject” is also not a command (imperative), but a participle in a series of participles.

This is my favorite part. I’ve never thought or believed that wives being told to submit was a “command.”
A command, for example would be the first or second greatest commandments. Those are actual commands.

“It amazes me that these people regularly read 1 Cor. 12:1-11 and Eph. 4:11-16, and yet cannot see”

Perhaps meditation would be a next step?

Awesome. Thanks Cheryl 🙂

“…but I believe that each appearance of Jesus in the…was there at Adam’s creation.”
I’MMM INTERESTED IN MORE!!! 😀

Aaron,

What’s the relationship between your comment and Eph 5?

Merry Christmas to you!! 🙂

Gengwall,

Sorry gengwall, let me qualify this – “Such a strange and crazy thing to be obsessed over – the control of another human being.” The context was men controlling women or gender hierarchy, not control in general by men over other people, male or female. I mean, or am talking about specificaly, men wanting to control females because they are female and not male.
Ever see the movie, The Reef which was released on video in 2011? Was based on a real story, and granted neither of thetwo couples were married. So..their ship is sinking and everyone involved had to make a choice whether or not to stay on top of the upside down boat or swim like 12 miles to the nearest island. One man stayed on the capsized boat and the other four, two females and 2 males took thier chance in the water. By the end, only one female survived and wasn’t eaten by a stalking shark, out of all five people. Horrible story in that the end was bad. Anyway, your example made me think of it, so just wanted to bring it up. My point is that no one was forced in their descision, and only one survived. I don’t think anyone can ‘force’ a descision on anyone in that kind of real life circumstance. And btw what was so interesting to me about the movie was watching the descion process of all the characters as each decided what they were going to do.

Also, I think it is not a sin to take control is certain circumstances no matter the scenario. And a perfect example would be a man or a woman taking control over another human being in a life threatenting situation, like the example you gave above. – If I KNOW I can save someone’s life by doing something, I might force my will and save their life.

“..alien from the intergalctic man cave.” lol You’re choice of words, too funny. My brother and a friend have been using “man cave” alot, so I’ve become accustomed to using the phrase. lol

And I want to remind you that where I come from in regards to why males want to rule/control females is based on the fall of Adam – “He shall rule over you” and therefore I believe that gender hierarchy or the desire of a male to control a female because she is not a male is sin.

Also where I come from, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with order and structure r the desire for it, but there’s everything wrong with ‘gender’ + ‘order’ – “gender order.”