" What About LADY TALKERS "

Originally Posted by tbpew

As a voice to offer some offset to what I preceive as largely a rant, I ask the reader to consider this.

I just find it annoying when people try to erase gender distinctions in this present life under the guise of being "in Christ."

The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, the Kingdom of God is NOT OF THIS WORLD.

Agreed.

HOW LONG will those who profess a new birth as being a birth of the Spirit (note: I make no assumption that poster CHAN is one who does this), attempt to bring down that which is from above. The Kingdom of God is not of the natural realm. The definitions, constraints, laws and roles that can be applied within this realm to not have any assurance of transferability to the Kingdom of God. It is carnal, babe in Christ thinking, to do so.

The Bible does not appear to erase gender distinctions for the Church while we're here in this present world and I was objecting to the feminist attempt to erase gender distinctions.

That which is seen is to assist us in our understanding of that which came before, that which is not seen.

In the realm of time, in the earthly realm, in the below realm, we have roles that DO NOT EXIST in the Kingdom of God.

Agreed.

In the below/natural realm we have:
poor and rich
bound and free
MALE and FEMALE
Jew and Greek

None of these have application in the realm of the anointing of God's Spirit that is, --in Christ.

I'm not sure I agree with your equating the anointing of God's Spirit with being "in Christ" in the context of the passage being hinted at. I would agree that when the Church is taken out of this present world that there will be none of these distinctions, and I would agree that in terms of our justification, sanctification and eventual glorification these distinctions do not apply. However, they do still apply in terms of the operation of the Church here in this present world. Otherwise, there would be no basis for Paul to say he doesn't allow women to speak or to usurp authority. There would be no basis for Paul saying that the man (or husband) is the head of the woman (or wife). There would be no basis for effeminacy being something for which one will not inherit the kingdom of God (since being in Christ would erase all gender distinctions and, thus, there is no such thing as male or female, according to Mizpeh's use of the passage).

If I am operating with consideration of the diversity due to roles involving gender distinction, I am operating in a realm (jurisdiction) that is established to support the NATURAL order.

Since we still live in fleshly bodies in the natural world, these distinctions still apply at least with regard to our interactions with others.

If someone were to mistakenly apply jurisdiction or roles in a realm where they do not apply, he would be being as silly as a mother barging into the house next door and saying to the neighbor's child, "stop watching TV right now, get up and clean-up your room this minute!".

The Church presently occupies the earthly realm.

We need to understand where to apply our roles. Any distinction of roles have application first and foremost in the natural/below realm. It would be foolish (an exhibit of carnal-mindedness) to extend those roles into anything concerning our membership in the Body of God's anointing --his Christ.

The roles apply where the Bible applies them. To use the passage in question to claim (as feminists like Mizpeh do) that there are no gender roles (or even gender distinctions) for Christians while we're here in this present world, is the real foolishness and, worse, an attempt to conform the Bible to wicked worldly 21st century American culture.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

LOL, Chan, you never answered my question about the gifts of the Spirit that God gives to each of those in his body. Are the gifts of the ministry ONLY for males? How do you explain Paul's saying there is neither male nor female? What do you think he means?

I wasn't aware you asked the question. What do you mean by "gifts of the ministry"? Are you calling those whom God gave in Ephesians 4:11 mere "gifts"? I would remind you that Ephesians 4:11 doesn't say God gave gifts of apostleship, gifts of propecy, gifts of evangelism, gifts of pastors and teachers. There is such a thing as the gift of prophecy but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the prophets of Ephesians 4:11. But, to hopefully answer part of your question here, I do believe that those leadership roles that God gave in Ephesians 4:11 are only for males. I believe that the gift of prophecy and the other spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are for both men and women. Leadership roles (and imparting doctrine within the local church is a leadership role), such as the elders and those in Ephesians 4:11 are only for men because that is God's created order. To paraphrase Paul: Adam was created first, then Eve; Adam wasn't deceived, Eve was.

Chan, what I'm speaking of doesn't apply to the difference in women and men's clothing or women being subject to their husbands, or anything along natural lines of distinction. When we get to heaven there is no marriage nor giving in marriage but we will be equal to the angels.

But in your posts you were trying to apply the passage to what goes on within the Church here in this present world. I agree that when we get to Heaven there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage (because that's what Jesus said) but that doesn't mean that women get to perform men's roles in the Church and men get to perform women's roles (such exchanging of roles being unnatural because it is contrary to God's created design and it results in an erasing of the gender distinctions). In terms of our salvation, in terms of having a relationship with God, I agree there is no distinction and that everyone is equal. That does not, however, extend to the operation of the local church.

[tbpew]

Chan,
Do you believe the Kingdom of God is of (pertains to) this world?

asked another way...
When Jesus said,

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

What is the edification when we receive this witness?

No dispute that the church of God is being manifested ON THE EARTH but the church is established and conducted ABOVE (in the realm of the Spirit).

I make no dispute that the aspects of my role as a male, as a father, and as a husband are established in the scriptures and are still presently in full effect, but the jurisdiction that those roles are in operation is strictly limited to the BELOW realm.

I think my departure from your view may be based in my confidence that the realm of the Spirit is not a future event ( a view where we live on earth now but later...in heaven). The realm of the Spirit (walking in God's anointing) is fully accessible now.

Eph 1:3 provides this great hope of unlimited access NOW:

Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ

If we are in Christ, we live and move and operate within TWO realms IN THIS LIFE. Christ did (John 3:13), and so do we according to the truth of Eph 1:3.

Originally Posted by tbpew

Chan,
Do you believe the Kingdom of God is of (pertains to) this world?

asked another way...
When Jesus said,

<B>

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

</B>What is the edification when we receive this witness?

I don't believe that the Kingdom of God pertains to this present world except in the sense that the Church serves in this present world as ambassadors of that kingdom and in the sense that Jesus will one day literally reign on Earth for 1,000 years.

No dispute that the church of God is being manifested ON THE EARTH but the church is established and conducted ABOVE (in the realm of the Spirit).

But what you're suggesting in this is that there are no gender distinctions at all in the Church.

I make no dispute that the aspects of my role as a male, as a father, and as a husband are established in the scriptures and are still presently in full effect, but the jurisdiction that those roles are in operation is strictly limited to the BELOW realm.

But you seem to be trying to remove the Church from that realm and, so, none of the aspects of you being male don't apply once you walk through the doors of your local church.

I think my departure from your view may be based in my confidence that the realm of the Spirit is not a future event ( a view where we live on earth now but later...in heaven). The realm of the Spirit (walking in God's anointing) is fully accessible now.

But to do that, you'd have to eliminate everything Paul said about women being silent in the church, about women not usurping authority, about effeminacy, etc.

Eph 1:3 provides this great hope of unlimited access NOW:

<B>

Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ

</B>

If we are in Christ, we live and move and operate within TWO realms IN THIS LIFE. Christ did (John 3:13), and so do we according to the truth of Eph 1:3.

So, are you saying, as you appear to be, that there are no gender distinctions in the Church here in this present world?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

The roles apply where the Bible applies them. To use the passage in question to claim (as feminists like Mizpeh do) that there are no gender roles (or even gender distinctions) for Christians while we're here in this present world, is the real foolishness and, worse, an attempt to conform the Bible to wicked worldly 21st century American culture.

Chan,

I'm not denying the role of the wife nor am I advocating unisex clothing. You use the word 'feminist' in a derogatory way. I don't consider myself to be a militant feminist nor do I even label myself as a feminist.

I have nothing to gain in arguing this passage of scripture nor the reason for this thread. I don't feel called to preach or teach. So I have no personal motive to try to prove women are called of God to preach the gospel.

Let me run this by you for your consideration. This is taken from an article written by Bruce Klein, a member of this forum. This is his translation of 1 Tim 2:11-14:

"Let a wife (woman, KJV) learn in tranquility (silence), in all subjection, But I do not allow (suffer) a wife (woman) to teach, nor to exercise authority over a husband (man), but to be in tranquility (silence). For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the wife (woman) being deceived has come to be in transgression."

The Greek word for man can be translated husband. The Greek word for woman can be translated wife. The person translating Greek to English is required to look at the Biblical context. Man, woman, and women should be replaced by husband, wife, and wives, because the context shows a husband and wife relationship - Adam and Eve. Since the context implies a husband and wife relationship, translators should respond by translating wife in place of woman and husband in place of man.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. KJV

I think you can see if Paul's intent had to do with the husband - wife relationship then this passage is not saying a woman cannot be used by God to preach but that a woman should be in subjection to her husband.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Chan,

I'm not denying the role of the wife nor am I advocating unisex clothing. You use the word 'feminist' in a derogatory way. I don't consider myself to be a militant feminist nor do I even label myself as a feminist.

I have nothing to gain in arguing this passage of scripture nor the reason for this thread. I don't feel called to preach or teach. So I have no personal motive to try to prove women are called of God to preach the gospel.

Let me run this by you for your consideration. This is taken from an article written by Bruce Klein, a member of this forum. This is his translation of 1 Tim 2:11-14:

"Let a wife (woman, KJV) learn in tranquility (silence), in all subjection, But I do not allow (suffer) a wife (woman) to teach, nor to exercise authority over a husband (man), but to be in tranquility (silence). For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the wife (woman) being deceived has come to be in transgression."

The Greek word for man can be translated husband. The Greek word for woman can be translated wife. The person translating Greek to English is required to look at the Biblical context. Man, woman, and women should be replaced by husband, wife, and wives, because the context shows a husband and wife relationship - Adam and Eve. Since the context implies a husband and wife relationship, translators should respond by translating wife in place of woman and husband in place of man.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. KJV

I think you can see if Paul's intent had to do with the husband - wife relationship then this passage is not saying a woman cannot be used by God to preach but that a woman should be in subjection to her husband.

Good afternoon

This is a very interesting topic and I for one agree with what is said here by Sis Carol I my self have felt the call to be a bible teacher and am doing some bible teaching but I am not in any way a feminist or label my self as one . I am just a humble servant of the Lord doing as He has called me to do and that is to be a prayer intercessor and a bible teacher . I feel that God can and does use ladies who are in truth to reach out in a teaching capacity with this wonderful truth of Jesus name. I would in no way upsurp authority over lets say my pastor or anyone God places over me who are in truth. All I have to say for now Jesus bless you
sister phyllis

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Chan,

I'm not denying the role of the wife nor am I advocating unisex clothing. You use the word 'feminist' in a derogatory way. I don't consider myself to be a militant feminist nor do I even label myself as a feminist.

I have nothing to gain in arguing this passage of scripture nor the reason for this thread. I don't feel called to preach or teach. So I have no personal motive to try to prove women are called of God to preach the gospel.

Let me run this by you for your consideration. This is taken from an article written by Bruce Klein, a member of this forum. This is his translation of 1 Tim 2:11-14:

"Let a wife (woman, KJV) learn in tranquility (silence), in all subjection, But I do not allow (suffer) a wife (woman) to teach, nor to exercise authority over a husband (man), but to be in tranquility (silence). For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the wife (woman) being deceived has come to be in transgression."

The Greek word for man can be translated husband. The Greek word for woman can be translated wife. The person translating Greek to English is required to look at the Biblical context. Man, woman, and women should be replaced by husband, wife, and wives, because the context shows a husband and wife relationship - Adam and Eve. Since the context implies a husband and wife relationship, translators should respond by translating wife in place of woman and husband in place of man.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. KJV

I think you can see if Paul's intent had to do with the husband - wife relationship then this passage is not saying a woman cannot be used by God to preach but that a woman should be in subjection to her husband.

I use the term "feminist" to identify a particular philosophical bent. That you choose to see that as derogatory is up to you. As for the rest of your post, "can be translated" doesn't mean "must be translated" and I disagree with those who suggest that the passages in question "should be translated" that way.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by tbpew

As a voice to offer some offset to what I preceive as largely a rant, I ask the reader to consider this.

The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, the Kingdom of God is NOT OF THIS WORLD.

HOW LONG will those who profess a new birth as being a birth of the Spirit (note: I make no assumption that poster CHAN is one who does this), attempt to bring down that which is from above. The Kingdom of God is not of the natural realm. The definitions, constraints, laws and roles that can be applied within this realm to not have any assurance of transferability to the Kingdom of God. It is carnal, babe in Christ thinking, to do so.

That which is seen is to assist us in our understanding of that which came before, that which is not seen.

In the realm of time, in the earthly realm, in the below realm, we have roles that DO NOT EXIST in the Kingdom of God.

In the below/natural realm we have:
poor and rich
bound and free
MALE and FEMALE
Jew and Greek

None of these have application in the realm of the anointing of God's Spirit that is, --in Christ.

If I am operating with consideration of the diversity due to roles involving gender distinction, I am operating in a realm (jurisdiction) that is established to support the NATURAL order.

If someone were to mistakenly apply jurisdiction or roles in a realm where they do not apply, he would be being as silly as a mother barging into the house next door and saying to the neighbor's child, "stop watching TV right now, get up and clean-up your room this minute!".

We need to understand where to apply our roles. Any distinction of roles have application first and foremost in the natural/below realm. It would be foolish (an exhibit of carnal-mindedness) to extend those roles into anything concerning our membership in the Body of God's anointing --his Christ.

Well, I don't know who tbpew is; but this post is AWESOME.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

I use the term "feminist" to identify a particular philosophical bent. That you choose to see that as derogatory is up to you. As for the rest of your post, "can be translated" doesn't mean "must be translated" and I disagree with those who suggest that the passages in question "should be translated" that way.

If you go on and read vs 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Would you say 'they' is speaking of husband and wife? If yes, can you see how this passage relates to the marriage relationship and subjection of the wife to her husband and not a woman usurping authority over the preacher but over her husband? I think Bro Bruce may have a legitimate point with his translation of that passage.

Here are some references in the Bible of ladies being used of God

Mary Romans 16:6
Phoebe Romans 16:1
Dorcas Acts 18: 24-28
Syntyche Philippians 4;2
Deborah Judges 4
Mariam Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12;1
Huldah 2 Kings 22:13-20; 2 Chronicles 34: 21 - 28
Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis , Romans 16:6


Theses ladies were used of God mightily so God must not mind ladies
being used in His chruch. I am not saying that a lady should ever upsurp authority over their pastors but if the pastor calls upon that lady to do something in the chruch then the lady may do so but under the anointing of the Lord and under the leadership of her church and that may be for example as a teacher, singing, leading in the preliminaries of the service and many other ways . I think the passage given earlier was talking about the relationship between a husband and a wife We have to be very careful we don't take a scripture out of context but read the entire passage to get the full meaning of what is being said or taught

God bless
sister phyllis

There are some wonderful lady missionaries in the mission field and one of those I know is sister Alvear and I am sure that she ministers under the direction of her missionary husband but at the same time I would say in some cases she witnesses and leads souls to the Lord .

My point is God does use women in His work but in the proper manner.