pinklight

The question is then, is traditional teaching on women biblical or tradition of men?

I should have said, had I kept with my train of thought…the question is then, why do we deny traditional interpretation regarding women in God’s word.

Okay, Heidi. Same to you.

Heidi,

Why are you denying God’s word?

The issue isn’t that we are denying God’s word, the issue is interpretation of God’s word. What we do deny is tradition’s interpretation of scripture regarding women in God’s word. (Your) Interpretation doesn’t = God’s word, but IT IS indeed tradition. The question is then, is traditional teaching on women biblical or tradition of men?

Heidi,

What would you think if you had discovered that women are actually free to do as God calls them to do, whether that’s leading a home along with her husband, pastoring a church, or both and teaching the Bible and so forth. Should you discover that tradition is passing down false teaching, what would you think of that? Should you wish to respond, I’m just wondering.

There you are! 🙂 Just saying *hi* and want to make sure you’re doing okay! Miss you Cheryl.

Hey Dave. Good question @196 I was hoping you would have the answer and I could sit back and enjoy!

lol me too! 🙂

Yeah, Craig I was just observing your reasoning and questioning. It’s good 🙂

Why is it that if one submits to someone else, it implies being under the authority of the one being submitted to?
Why is it that if someone is said to submit to someone else in the bible, or commanded to submit to someone else in the bible, or we are commanded to submit to one another Eph 5:21 the thought of being under authority immediately comes to mind. Why does it seem so unthinkable that it could be voluntarily yielding of our own desires to put others first and meet their needs Phil 2:3,4. Why can’t we think of this as something all Christians should do- male or female?
Just hypothetically, what would comps think if after Galatians 5:13, Paul had written
“Wives, “serve” your husbands as you “serve” the Lord. As the church “serves” Christ, so also wives should “serve” their husbands in everything.” Would they limit Gal 5:13 as just those under authority are to serve those in authority over them? Would it mean that husbands did not need to serve their wives? Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?

lol

Westcott-Hort/Netle-Aland actually have Christos instead of Theo. That’s weird. Scripture4all.org has Theo. They are using the Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus edition. The said:

🙂

Cheryl,

I hope your ministry partner is doing fine with recovery and you take it easy as much as you can.

Everyone, who has posted, nice comments 🙂

I’m having such a blessed time right now. I just wanted to come in and say *hi* to everyone! Hi ya’ll, miss you guys! It’s been quite here. And hope you’re resting up Cheryl! 🙂
Blessings everyone!

I can’t get it to show the slides for me TL. I tried to look. I think it’s this computer, it always was kinda slow, links don’t exactly work, and it just doesn’t seem to function that great.

*computers figures*

Was it Eve’s nature as to why she sinned or Adam’s? Adam chose to sin willfully therefore once he did that it was a matter of him having a nature to rebel. Eve didn’t. So here again I cannot see women partaking in Eve’s sin. She didn’t sin out of a rebellios nature. Trying to make sense of this…

In response to what I quoted of Kristen’s above. On of the things that crossed my mind was that Ecve was murdered whereas Adam sinned willfully. I don’t think Paul would set up Eve as an example who’s sin women partake of since she was a victim of the devil. it doesn’t add up. Jesus said that he was a murderer from the beginning and didn’t hold to the truth.

Hopefully Cheryl can rescue my other small comment from space.

Ahh, what happened to my last comment? It should’ve been #11.

I’ve more…

As for the nature of my statements about Eve, they assume that Paul is saying something theologically similar to what he says about Adam in Romans 5:12, that just as all humans sin in Adam, so all women partake of the sin of Eve, and that to say Eve is “saved” is a metaphor saying that womankind is saved through the belief of women in Christ, just as humankind are saved from the sin of Adam through belief in Christ. To refer to Eve in a form of present tense would be metaphorical; Eve as a symbol of all women.

So the first woman failed in that she was deceived by the serpent, yet womankind would be saved through the belief of women in Christ? This is confusing. All women partake in the sin of Eve? She was murdered. Jesus said that the devil was a murderer from the beginning. Adam though sinned willfully. I’m trying to add up what you’ve said here and push it around in my head…

Kristen,
This catches my eye:

As for the nature of my statements about Eve, they assume that Paul is saying something theologically similar to what he says about Adam in Romans 5:12, that just as all humans sin in Adam, so all women partake of the sin of Eve, and that to say Eve is “saved” is a metaphor saying that womankind is saved through the belief of women in Christ, just as humankind are saved from the sin of Adam through belief in Christ. To refer to Eve in a form of present tense would be metaphorical; Eve as a symbol of all women.

I can see what your saying but how could one be absolutely sure that v14 is refering to Eve when Paul switched from proper name to a particular woman, “the woman”? My interests lies in what we can be sure of.

Craig,
I’ve not heard of Michael Green’s suggestion. Though interesting, even if authentien had a sexual meaning there’s no way to get that meaning out of the passage itself. Unless I’m missing mounds of evidence? It’s like with Paul using the singular genericaly. Neither can be taken out of the passge itself. The possibilities outside the passage or text itself can be stacked up miles to the heavens, but they can’t tell us anything at all about what’s held within the passage itself. I’ve heard elsewhere or by someone else the suggestion that authentien had a sexual meaning, and I thought it was an interesting read at the time.

The prohibition is listed as God is against women assuming authority for themselves to teach men. This view has been brought out by Philip B. Payne in “Man and Woman One in Christ” pg 338.

Since this is the point made by Payne then what’s his reason? I’ve not read the book. I wonder if in Payne’s view it is applicable to men also? If not then there must be a reason why it is not and why only women are singled out?

I was so glad to have you back and read your comments! You’re very thorough. Now your leaving again? 🙁 Don’t keep quite! ;P

I agree. Have Jereth come over here if he would like to continue the discussion. Because of the volume of comments I have trouble with the page over there.

Hi Sandra,

You’ve made an interesting comment. It’s your tone that grabs me.

All I can say is that there are a lot of women out there who have either been wounded by men and now are in rebellion against a wonderful example of God and His church, or they are just plain still stuck in rebellion.

I would agree with you and say that there are indeed alot of women out there who have been wounded by comp men, but I would ask, how do you know 100% if any women hurt or not by the comp position are in rebellion against complementarianism? How do you know with 100% surety that complementarianism is even biblical?

Wake up, women, no one is trying to take anything away from you or degrade you in any way. It’s just that old flesh rising to the surface when you bristle at any kind of authority. Open your minds and ask God to open your hearts to the beauty.

If you knew for sure that complementarianism was biblical then I could possibly give this part of your comment some weight, and so I still sit here with my question that I gave above to you. What makes you so sure of your comp beliefs (theories)? Maybe you might consider that there a very good reasons for why the comp position is rejected?

Hi Craig,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It does seem like Adam may have known about the serpent’s nature before it went after Eve and he could no doubt tell it’s deceiving nature when it did attack Eve because of the way it handled God’s command. And yes, he knew how much God loved him. God gave him all the good things that he needed. He lacked nothing.

In addition to #195 I have to add that it appears at least some of the answer lies in Gen 3:1:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

Adam not only was present when the serpent was created but he also named it “serpent”. (And he knew that the serpent was twisting the command that God told him but not the woman)

Cheryl, if and when you have time I have 2 questions that crossed my mind yesterday in the evening that I’m hoping you can help me with.

Adam had knowledge that protected him from the serpent’s deception. The serpent’s deception was that 1) he (and her) would become like God knowing good and evil (which was a lie because God doesn’t know evil). So my question is how did Adam learn or gain knowledge that God doesn’t ‘know’ evil through observing God as Creator? And another question I have is how was Adam protected from the serpent’s other lie which was that they would not die, from learning about God as creator? I feel like I’m missing something? It is obvious that Adam had to of learned more about God than Eve did since God created things in Adam’s presence, but I feel lost in the details? Have I forgotten something that you’ve said somewhere in another post?

Kay, thanks, I hope to see answers to those if they’ve already been asked.

Thanks TL for the link. I’ve already began reading the comments. Hope to get through them soon! And thanks for letting me know how J was arguing in regards to a question I had. I like to read the long discussions so am glad that you Craig have mentioned it.

If you give the link Craig, I think I have some questions. Like for example, how does Eve’s giving fruit to Adam come to be viewed as an act of leading? Or what was it she did or said when she gave fruit to Adam that placed her into a leadership role?

Ooops, sorry I messed up the quote, Craig.

Here’s more of my thoughts Craig,

J is saying that Adam was not deceived into abandoning his role though Adam sinned in abandoning his role, but I can’t see the how or why Adam was not ‘deceived’ into abandoning his role yet Eve was?

I also think that Adam had a will and could have chosing to not follow Eve in eating.

Nevertheless, Adam’s assumption of a submissive role was, like his taking of the fruit, something that happened passively. He did not ask Eve to lead him.

I wouldn’t conclude Adam was passive just because he followed her steps. Just because he did what she did and after she did it doesn’t mean that his action was passive.

And why was Adam’s eating after Eve considered a submissive role? The following thought is interesting: ‘Adam didn’t ask Eve to lead him.’ So I take it that Eve asked Adam to ‘follow’ her? Where did she do this?

Hi Craig,

Any chance you coulos provide the link for the discussion?

I think you would say that Adam and Eve both knew about the authority/ leadership comps believe he was given.
If Eve knew she was not to be in authority, but then led Adam, you are saying she was deceived.
If Adam knew he was in authority, but then followed Eve, then logically he must be deceived as well. Both were deceived about their roles.
But Paul says that only Eve was deceived. Adam was not deceived???? Something doesn’t make sense. Any thoughts?

I agree with the logic here.
Some questions I’m asking myself – why would Eve have been deceived about her role but Adam would not be deceived about his role when each were aware of their roles and each abandoned their role? More questions in my mind – What caused each to act against their role? In this scernario how did one end up deceived about their role but not the other?