[Travis]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

i will get back to styudying for my greek final.

You too? I have mine in a couple hours.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Travis

You too? I have mine in a couple hours.

tommorrow, Greek Grammar II

[Link H]

Identifying with someone and being identical to someone are two different concepts. I used 'identify' not 'identical.' To avoid further meta-discussionI'll rephrase, using 'associate.'

Paul seems to be associating men with Adam and women with Eve.

On Calvin, if the predestined are predestined to good works which they perform by God's grace, then the fact that those who are saved are saved after continue in goodness need not be seen as an attack on God's grace. Calvinists typically believe in the perseverance of the saints, anyway.

Jesus taught that he would reject lawless people who called Him Lord.

[Gracie Love]

Okay I have been watching this discussion. I have a question. To my knowledge, the Bible supports the idea of multiple elders to rule a church right? Okay so 1 single elder would not have the power with in himself over the congredgation. As a group they have the power and authority. So why could a woman not be an elder so that the women in the church would have a voice in the elder board. It does saw in the Bible that Elder women should help the younger. I know most take that as meaning an older woman is to help and teach younger women.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Link_H

On Calvin, if the predestined are predestined to good works which they perform by God's grace, then the fact that those who are saved are saved after continue in goodness need not be seen as an attack on God's grace. Calvinists typically believe in the perseverance of the saints, anyway.

Jesus taught that he would reject lawless people who called Him Lord.

There's too much implication in your posting on this topic for me to be sure about what you're defending. Calvin himself quoted Augustine regarding Galatians 6:8, affirming that God's crowning of the works that are His own gifts is no challenge to grace. However, even in Galatians 6:8, he carefully avoided the position of "the Papists:" Paul would not allow one work to stick its foot through the door of justification, so neither can we.

Originally Posted by Gracie Love

Okay I have been watching this discussion. I have a question. To my knowledge, the Bible supports the idea of multiple elders to rule a church right? Okay so 1 single elder would not have the power with in himself over the congredgation. As a group they have the power and authority. So why could a woman not be an elder so that the women in the church would have a voice in the elder board. It does saw in the Bible that Elder women should help the younger. I know most take that as meaning an older woman is to help and teach younger women.

You don't have to be an elder in order to have a voice. Think about it this way: Do the children have a representative in the board of elders? Do the college students (and the singles, probably)? No, but they still have a voice, for three reasons.

First, because they can go talk to the elders.

Second, because some of the elders are almost certainly fathers.

Third, because a good elder is supposed to take into account the needs of the congregation. He should be going out and trying to take care of the needs of the people.

Likewise, with women: They can talk to the elders, the elders are married to (and are the fathers of) women, and the elders ought to be trying to figure out what the women need.

Therefore, we don't need to go against the order God set out in the Church in order for the needs of various groups in the congregation to be considered in the session.

[+Donny]

Because it's representative of her proper role; she's saved from the error of usurping authority if she turns to her proper role. Calvin comments,

"If this passage be tortured, as Papists are wont to do, to support the righteousness of works, the answer is easy. The Apostle does not argue here about the cause of salvation, and therefore we cannot and must not infer from these words what works deserve; but they only shew in what way God conducts us to salvation, to which he has appointed us through his grace."

How is childbirth "in what way God conducts us to salvation"? I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean here.

One representative of many.

It still seems odd that the grammar would change in the middle of v. 15. He could have continued with the singular in the latter part of v. 15, keeping with Eve as the representative, and he could have made v. 15 entirely plural, referring to the fact that all women are saved through childbearing.

No. Both are "the childbearing." Greek's use of the definite article (our 'the') isn't nearly as restricted as English's.

So using the definite article does not necessarily mean they are referring to a specific manifestation of a childbirth, but could be referring to generic childbearing?

The passage is talking about the women, and uses Eve only as an example.

Why would Eve but such a good example of a women being "saved" through childbearing?

Introducing some complex talk about the birth of Christ is a tangent -- why go down it, especially considering as how Paul doesn't expand on it? Perhaps God's response to Eve of the pain of childbearing is partially in view, but this only as it relates to the position of the women. If Paul had suddenly started on a big point about salvation, he would have continued down it (for a bit, at least), instead of continuing to talk about the proper role of women (end of v. 15) and then authority in the Church (ch. 3).[/quote]

It wasn't a big point. All he was saying was that the woman's deception was in some way repaired by the childbirth. I don't see why this was such a massive revelation, if his reader knew about the protoevangelium.

They're trying to steal the man's role; instead, they should return to their roles. Childbearing is just representative of the role of women here. It's probably mentioned because of its relation to God's curse on Eve.

It seems a strained interpretation to refer "childbearing" merely to overall roles of women, especially given the latter part of v. 15. I don't recall any other scripture speaking of being saved from some rebellious actions that go against one's normal role by doing what one is, by nature, supposed to do. Such terminology just doesn't seem to fit the normal usage of the word "saved". And why would he say something like, "Women, you will be saved from being rebellious and trying to steal authority from men if you go back to your natural roles, in faith, love, holiness, and self-control." What is the purpose of adding, "in faith, love, holiness, and self-control"?

Finally, the childbirth seems to be set up against the woman's deception, not the woman's attempt to usurp the natural order of authority, which doesn't seem to fit under your interpretation of "childbearing".

[Link H]

I agree with MBN on this one.

The Bible lists specific qualificatoins for elders. These qualifications are the reason for not having women elders.

Why should we be concerned about women 'having a voice' in church? The reason people for concern 'having a voice' seems to come more from the world view of people who live in a culture that emphasizes democracy than from anything we see in the Bible.

Typically, older men are married to older women as well. The wives of elders talk to them, and women do 'have a voice.' The husband of the woman of noble character takes his seat among the elders at the gate of the city.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Acts 18:24 - 26 24 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately

1 Cor 16 ;14-16, 19 14 Let all your things be done with charity. 15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. 19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Romans 16:1-5 1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. 3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; 5 also greet the church that is in their house

Though none of these passages come out directly and say that the women mentioned had any " authority" in the church, I think if you read them it indicates that they did have some . In the passage from Acts 18, it states that Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos and that THEY took him aside and explained to him the way of God. The passage in Corinthians says that there was a church in Aquila and Priscillas house. Paul also speaks in this passage in Cor. about another home that is " addicted to the ministry of the saints" and Paul tells those to whom he is writing, "That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth" If you submit, you place yourself under the authority of someone else. He then mentions Priscilla and Aquila again. In the Romans passage he states that Priscilla and Aquila are " fellow workers in Christ Jesus". And then in the Romans 16 passage , Paul refers to Phoebe as a " servant of the church" and that those he is writing to " help her in whatever matter she may have need of you", which would put Phoebe in an authoratative position.

[loriborealis]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Paul also speaks in this passage in Cor. about another home that is " addicted to the ministry of the saints" and Paul tells those to whom he is writing, "That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth" If you submit, you place yourself under the authority of someone else. He then mentions Priscilla and Aquila again.

This argument is ridiculous! Why did you skip two verses? To make the mention of Priscilla and Aquila closer? They aren't still a part of his command to submit yourselves. They are part of his final greetings.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

In the Romans passage he states that Priscilla and Aquila are " fellow workers in Christ Jesus".

What does this have to do with authority?

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

And then in the Romans 16 passage , Paul refers to Phoebe as a " servant of the church" and that those he is writing to " help her in whatever matter she may have need of you", which would put Phoebe in an authoratative position.

Since when has being a SERVANT put anyone in AUTHORITY?

Helping someone doesn't automatically imply that they have authority over you. My changing a child's diaper (helping him in whatever matter he many need of me) does not put the child in authority over me.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by loriborealis

Since when has being a SERVANT put anyone in AUTHORITY?

Helping someone doesn't automatically imply that they have authority over you. My changing a child's diaper (helping him in whatever matter he many need of me) does not put the child in authority over me.

Not to mention that this would entail that the disciples were in a position of authority over Christ....

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by loriborealis

This argument is ridiculous! Why did you skip two verses? To make the mention of Priscilla and Aquila closer? They aren't still a part of his command to submit yourselves. They are part of his final greetings.

What does this have to do with authority?
Since when has being a SERVANT put anyone in AUTHORITY?

I didn't skip 2 verses to put Priscilla and Aquila close, I only posted the last verse to show that Paul specifically mentioned these 2 people right after all he had just said.. Paul says "That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth". Paul in the reference I gave calls P and A fellow workers, states that THEY set someone straight about God. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to say that Paul would put them in the category of " every one that helpeth with us and laboureth".

Christ said He came to serve and I would say He had clear authority. Just because one is called a servant does not mean they have no authority. Peter was told " feed my sheep", sounds like the job of a servant. Many passages in scripture have those in authority refered to as servants. In the passage about Phoebe , they were told to " receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you. Does that mean then , that they were to help her serve dinner or something??? Or could it mean they were to help her in her ministry, whatever it was? The one someone is a helper for is the one in authority. Here is the Strongs for the word translated " servant" in this passage about Phoebe

1. one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
.. 1. the servant of a king
.. 2. a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
.. 3. a waiter, one who serves food and drink

She obviously isn't the servant of a king, and I think that if all she was was one who waited on tables, Paul wouldn't say to receive her in a manner worthy of the saints. That leaves the second one, one who has an office to care for the poor . This seems to fit quite well with the brief description we are given of Phoebe.