Things haven’t been going great or smoothly for you Cheryl, but it is good to hear from you! 🙂 You’re in my thoughts and prayers 🙂

Kristen,
Thanks for clearing that up, Kristen. You did @52

Paul calls Pheobe a “deacon.” Paul also says a deacon must be “husband of one wife.” So– either “husband of one wife” is gender-inclusive, or Pheobe was a man.
Simple logic.

Sorry Mark, my bad. I was refering to @73.

Mark,

You’re drew a conclusion that Kristen was making a claim when she did not. And what does that say to me about the conclusions you draw in regards to your comp position?

Third time’s a charm!

Kay,
You’re right and those are depressing thoughts.

Mark,
1) When did Kristen even make this claim? “Therefore, no, ‘husband of one wife’ is not ‘gender inclusive’ which is an outlandish claim Kristen has made un-supported.”
2) Is it possible or not that Phoebe was a deacon? You had said, “Pheobe could easily have been a deacon”

That one made it! K, I think I know why they both didn’t go through.

I give up…lol my last two comments won’t go through…lol

What happened to my comment? I clicked “submit comment” but it disappeared!

Hi Kay 🙂
Yeah and that’s a depressing thought.

t h i n k o u t s i d e t h e b o x

lol

Therefore, no, ‘husband of one wife’ is not ‘gender inclusive’ which is an outlandish claim Kristen has made un-supported.

Mark,
Can you point out to me where Kristen even made that claim? 😉

It’s easy on two accounts. I can legitimately claim that verse 11 refers to wives and Pheobe simply a servant. That is issue number one and is a fair and legitimate interpretation.

Okay, so for you it is or is not possible that Phoebe was a Deacon? You had said, “Pheobe could easily have been a deacon…”

It was nice to get to exchange a few words with you Mark, but I cannot see one point you’ve made in @72 that doesn’t fall to the ground based on @73. So untell you can answer @73, I just don’t know what to say.
Good to see you here! 🙂

Hello Mark @72
I don’t know…unless I’m forgetting something (which I’m great at doing) looks to me like this is what it comes down to:

It seems to me that you’ve either got to deny any possibility that Paul considered Phoebe a deacon or that he was talking about women deacons, or you’ve got to admit that Paul does not explicitly gender-restrict overseers by the use of the term “husband of one wife.”

And thanks for the reminder Kristen!! A long time ago when I was studying for myself on Phoebe and 1 Tim 3 on deacons, I had come to the same realization. And I felt like I was alone and lost in my studies while thinking things through at the time lol as in “what planet am I on” lol because I couldn’t understand why CBMW “hadn’t figured that one out.” (Or had they…..?) lol

I’m still tired… I’m outte!

If you allow that Phoebe “may” have been a deacon, and that 1 Tim 3 “may” refer to women deacons, then it follows that “husband of one wife” “may” be gender inclusive. And if it is, then it is gender inclusive when used of overseers just as it is when used of deacons.

This is great!
I’m not all here yet…still tired, but I see that Kristen is awake!
More coffee…
😛

I agreed that diakonos can mean ‘deacon’ in certain contextual circumstances and i likewise agreed that 1 Tim 3:11 could be refering to women deacons. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBILITY so to say it is or at least assume and promote it is, is misleading, that’s all.

Well, both interpretations cannot be right. One must be wrong and so the one who holds the wrong interpretation is misleading knowingly or not. What absolute exclusion can be made, again? Someone please infrom.

Mark,

Glad you’re still here! Hi! 🙂

Ramon,

The bible is completely silent on the husband being the sole head of the family, but yet you say that we should be silent where the bible does not speak and at the same time tell us that the husband is the final rule of the home?? Please explain.

Speak where the bible speaks and where the bible is silent then so should we.

Ramon,
I agree as in God gave them rule over the earth and as in God did not give Adam rule over Eve.
But where do you say the bible speaks and where do you say it is silent?

I love a good toilet illustration.

Any chance of a graphic Cheryl?!?

ROTFLOL!!
Have a good laugh, on me! LOL!

OOOH! I get it now! Thanks Cheryl!!

Thanks for your questions and ideas Craig.

Were polygamists allowed to be set up as examples (as leaders) to the flock? No. Check!

All i am simply asking is for you egals to show one clear text that shows that kephale can be understood as source when used between people.

Mark, what about the context of 1 Co 11:3, the woman is from the man?

Let’s no be too critical of people bringing their agenda’s to the works either

Oh, no, let’s be critical, just enough. Your agenda, Mark is?

You show the classic case by arguing that different metaphors have different meanings. But what about 1 Cor 11:3. Same context, smae structure, same metaphor

The Father and Son are husband and wife? And how do you compare the husband’s cultural authority over the wife to the Father’s (your belief) over the Son?

@105

@124

I agree we shouldn’t get side tracked on kephale…i brought it up to simply show how your argument about truth is flawed, since egalitarians cannot show one example to support their argument. You show the classic case by arguing that different metaphors have different meanings. But what about 1 Cor 11:3. Same context, smae structure, same metaphor, yet you argue that each relationship gets a different meaning. I can’t except those type of exegetical backflips to dismiss the clear meaning.

Let’s go straight to the text, nuff said.
His argument about Truth is flawed?? 1) 1 co 11:3 is NOT the same context as Eph 5, and 2) kephale is NOT used as the same metaphor. Do you read a head/body metaphor somehwere in 1 Co 11 (as I can read such a metaphor in Eph 5)? What structure in 1 co 11 do you refer to that is similar to Eph 5? Is the Father, the BODY of CHRIST as the wife is the body of the husband? Help me out here, Mark?

I agree that there are essentials, one of which is justification by faith on a personal level, that is why the conditional clause in this particular interpretation is troublesome.

It appears then that you are misunderstanding us, Mark.

This is a conditional clause remember! If the condition is not met, salvation is gone.

I’m jumping in here without having read the rest of what you’ve said and your comments…Mark, have you read Dave’s posts?

He has NOT said, if only he continues…she will be saved, or she will only be saved if they both ocntinue. Why make Paul say more than he is saying? He is NOT suggesting (and has not said) that what the “he” does will determine “her” salvation but rather the simple truth that if they both continue SHE will be saved (as indeed BOTH of them will be). In regards to her salvation I am sure Paul would say that it is only, ultimately, resting on her faith in Christ…the childbirth, and the new life that springs from that.

I think it is very important what Paul did not say. Thumbs up!

54 & 55

Good points, Dave! I agree with them all.

Now if the woman’s salvation (her personal salvation from her own sin and restoration into a right relationship with God) is dependent upon what her husband does, how can we possibly reconcile that with the rest of the New Testament. What if she remains in faith and he doesn’t?

Mark,
Yes, it is dependent upon what she and her husband continue to do, but I don’t see the contradiction. Where’s the rub? “What if she remains in faith and he doesn’t?” I can only guess. Since Paul said that she will be saved “if they” remain in faith etc, I think that if her husband did not remain in faith then she might have not been saved because Paul said she would be saved “if they”…

Take your own life for example and i will assume your married. Do you believe that your salvation from sin and hell is conditional upon what your husband/wife (i don’t know what sex you are sorry) does/believes, or is your salvation dependent upon your own faith and trust in the atoneing work of Christ?

I’m female, Mark.
My situation actualy has been similar to the one in the passage but I won’t go into the details.
Do I believe that some may need another to come out of their sin? Absolutely. Can the help affect the salvation of the one who was in sin? Absolutely.

There is a difference between saying a spouse can influence your life/decisions etc and saying that their faith, love, sanctification and sobriety are all required for you to be saved. Can you see the difference?

What’s the difference? Are you saying that what the man had to do in order to help the woman come out of her deception and be saved was not a matter of influence? If what he was to do which was remain in faith etc wasn’t a matter of influence and the like then what was it?

If this hypothetical wife cannot be assured of her salvation unless her husband remains in faith etc, what does that say for us? How can we know we will ever be saved if it is conditional on our spouse?

We cannot say that everyone’s situation will be the same as the one Paul was addressing. We cannot say that everyone’s salvation will be conditional upon their spouse.

This theological position, if we are understanding each other correctly is radically unbiblical and completely undermines personal reconciliation with the Father.

How so? Are you sure?

I’d love to here your response to see if we understand each other. Are you actually proposing that this woman in Ephesus who is false teaching ( in ignorance) will only be saved if both her and her husband remain in faith, love etc… is one person’s salvation really dependent upon someone else’s actions that you have no control over?

I think I am understanding you. Yes, the woman will be saved “if they” continue in faith etc. Yes, a person’s salvation can be dependent upon someone else’s actions. But what are you getting at or asking in the last part of your question which is “that you have no control over”?

If this is what you believe…well let’s cross that bridge if we get to it! Hopefully not. I do not think 1 Tim 2:15 is proposing this, it is a contradiction with the rest of the NT.

lol Let’s cross the bridge, Mark! And can you explain the contradiction. I don’t see it.

I hope you are willing to answer why and how the woman’s salvation can be conditional on her husband’s faith, love, sobriety and sanctification. I hope you can offer a stronger case for your position.

From the text, can you tell us why and how the woman’s salvation cannot possibly be conditional on her and also her husband’s faith etc? What is wrong with the condition being in the text? Should it not be there for some reason that you can tell me? It just doesn’t seem right that it is there in the text in your opinion? It is not right that the woman’s salvation is dependent on her husband remaining in the faith because? What? People don’t have any affect at all on other’s salvation?

Where your exegesis becomes troublesome is when you appeal that the ‘they’ is husband and wife, since then it inevitably means that the future salvation of the wife is not only dependant on certain things but also on several people. Her salvation is conditional on not only her, but also on him remaining in faith etc.

Hi Mark, good to see you visiting here.
Why is it a problem for you that this woman’s salvation is conditional on one person (her husband – rather than several people) and his remaining in faith etc? You don’t think that either a husband or a wife can have any serious effect on the salvation of their partner? I don’t understand why you have a problem with her husband having to remain in faith etc for her salvation since she is deceived. What does what he has to do in order for her to be saved mean to you? The woman’s husband has to do a, b and c, so what does that mean to you, what is the problem? Why is it a problem for you that her husband has a part in her “future salvation”? Can a wife or husband have a part in their spouses “future salvation”? I hope you are able to find time to answer my questions so that I can understand where you are coming from.

The greatest weakness of the CBMW apology demand is that no men were signatories. Perhaps I am prejudging, but I believe on that fact alone, prominent complementarian Evangelical leaders will dismiss the document as a mere “feminist rant.”

I believe the same thing. But I also believe that the document will have served it’s purpose in the end.

I think this because the emphasis is on Adam’s non-deception and I don’t think that any gnostic teaching can explain that.

Thumbs way up!!

but he does seem to have a desire for truth so I am interested to see if he is willing to admit the link.

*thumbs up*