The argument of women being the head of the Church
First I must point our attention to 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable (useful, beneficial) for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
This shows us that everything that is written in the Bible is what God ultimately has "said" from his own mouth, it is inspired by God.
My beliefs on the matter of women being the head of the Church are based soley on what the Bible says in 1 Timothy 3, with the belief that everything that is said in this passage is God inspired, for this reason I dwell on all the words of this Biblical passage and not on what the Human mouth of today says.
Paul writes in his first letter to Timothy in what we recognize as the 3 chapter the following.
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to be in the position of a bishop, he desires good work. A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to alcohol, not greedy of money, not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous. He must be on who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity, if a man does not know how to rule his own house how can he care for the Church of God?; he must not be new in faith, lest he become overwhelmed with pride and fall into the same condemnation as the devil. He must also have a good reputation and be well known by those who do not attend the church, so that he may not fall into criticism and the trap of the devil. Deacons must be the same, men with dignity, not deceptive, or addicted to wine, or greedy for money, he must hold the mystery of faith with a pure conscience. But let this be first tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.
If anyone does not know the historical significance of Deacons they are the ordained members of the church, who primarily report to the Bishops, but also teach to the people and lend a helping hand. Deacon means 'servant' 'teacher' 'messenger' and has more names that derive from it.
In this passage it clearly is gender specific (you can see the words which I took liberty at highlighting). A women, biblically CANNOT have a wife, and pronoun wise a women cannot be called a 'he,his or him' or even carry the noun 'men, or man.' Alot of people argue that you can change the Bible due to its cultural context, as it was written specifically for the people of that day and age. I would argue 'Jesus Christ (being God) is the same yesterday and today, and yes forever' So can you really argue that even though history has changed so drastically God has changed to? Wouldn't that draw power from God?
However I am not saying any man can be a pastor according to the passage this man needs to be well known he needs to manage his own household, and he can't be a new believer. Generally men who have his household in order, and his children under control, are men of age. They are men who do not have to worry about financial worries, and they have a stable relationship with their wives. Most men who are in such a well up kept situation also have the characteristics of being hospitable. Along with age comes experience, both in life and spiritual matters making that man more able to teach and relay the word of God effectively. With experience they can also counsel people comfortably.
This shows us that everything that is written in the Bible is what God ultimately has "said" from his own mouth, it is inspired by God.
My beliefs on the matter of women being the head of the Church are based soley on what the Bible says in 1 Timothy 3, with the belief that everything that is said in this passage is God inspired, for this reason I dwell on all the words of this Biblical passage and not on what the Human mouth of today says.
Paul writes in his first letter to Timothy in what we recognize as the 3 chapter the following.
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to be in the position of a bishop, he desires good work. A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to alcohol, not greedy of money, not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous. He must be on who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity, if a man does not know how to rule his own house how can he care for the Church of God?; he must not be new in faith, lest he become overwhelmed with pride and fall into the same condemnation as the devil. He must also have a good reputation and be well known by those who do not attend the church, so that he may not fall into criticism and the trap of the devil. Deacons must be the same, men with dignity, not deceptive, or addicted to wine, or greedy for money, he must hold the mystery of faith with a pure conscience. But let this be first tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.
If anyone does not know the historical significance of Deacons they are the ordained members of the church, who primarily report to the Bishops, but also teach to the people and lend a helping hand. Deacon means 'servant' 'teacher' 'messenger' and has more names that derive from it.
In this passage it clearly is gender specific (you can see the words which I took liberty at highlighting). A women, biblically CANNOT have a wife, and pronoun wise a women cannot be called a 'he,his or him' or even carry the noun 'men, or man.' Alot of people argue that you can change the Bible due to its cultural context, as it was written specifically for the people of that day and age. I would argue 'Jesus Christ (being God) is the same yesterday and today, and yes forever' So can you really argue that even though history has changed so drastically God has changed to? Wouldn't that draw power from God?
However I am not saying any man can be a pastor according to the passage this man needs to be well known he needs to manage his own household, and he can't be a new believer. Generally men who have his household in order, and his children under control, are men of age. They are men who do not have to worry about financial worries, and they have a stable relationship with their wives. Most men who are in such a well up kept situation also have the characteristics of being hospitable. Along with age comes experience, both in life and spiritual matters making that man more able to teach and relay the word of God effectively. With experience they can also counsel people comfortably.
God is NOT making exceptions
Question asked:
Do you think God ever makes exceptions? In the Bible it says do not steal, and then there are legends like Robin Hood who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. I'm not sure whether that would make him a good person or bad. He stood against injustice, but he did steal. How does God see that if it's done with intentions of helping others? Or like how our soldiers fight in wars to protect our country. God also said to not murder/kill, but if it's done to protect others and yourself, do you think God would see it as wrong?
my personal beliefs, theologically speaking (or my godlogic thoughts), are that we are called to defend and to provide for the weak the oppressed the widow and the orphan, at which the Bible states clearly in the old testament in Deuteronomy (which btw the old testament still is relevant as Jesus Christ references it many times in his teachings). Before we are to press the oppressor with such actions of violence and theft we must take steps in trying to confront the problem with peaceful actions, trying to reason with the person/oppressor with Love and compassion, then with the oppressors unsound decision to turn down your proposal there should be a disciplinary action that follows, then a warning, then a action, then a warning, then a action, then a warning, and then another action. However the warnings are not of those of an aggressor they are those of a man who feels pain in the actions that took place those of a man who feels compassion for the oppressor he is trying to defeat, or change for the better of the person.
Think of Moses, moses was a man who was called to change the heart of an oppressor, he started with a proposal, then upon the pharaohs negligent unsound decision, Moses gave a warning, and upon the refusal of the pharaoh there came a disciplinary action, then moses approached the pharaoh with heart of compassion but still with a warning, each time the pharaoh refused the proposal the actions came more and more violent and deadly, causing pain in the heart of pharaoh and each time Moses came back with compassion but with a warning.
Now think about Robin Hood. The story of Robin hood starts with him approaching the king in the presence of the people with a proposal, the king rejects the proposal, Robin hood then gives a warning, the king still rejects the idea given, so robin hood then acts on the warning, he then approaches the king again with a heart heavy with the actions he had to take, the king still hard as stone refuses, Robin hood gives another warning, and upon the kings refusal Robin hood acts, eventually the king becomes more and more hard outlawing Robin Hood.
Robin Hood is in the right, he took the necessary steps that led up to his actions, same as Moses, and David warning his enemies, and Judas warning his enemies who were suppressing the Christians after Christ.
So in this sense, God is NOT making an exception, he has commanded to defend with the necessary steps we must follow and he has provided us with many historical lessons we can follow in order to approach an oppressor and take action towards that person. In fact I find it amazing the repetition in both Biblical and World history that covers this particular topic. YOU HAVE TO LOVE HISTORICAL CHIAISM'S, and REPETITIONS!
Do you think God ever makes exceptions? In the Bible it says do not steal, and then there are legends like Robin Hood who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. I'm not sure whether that would make him a good person or bad. He stood against injustice, but he did steal. How does God see that if it's done with intentions of helping others? Or like how our soldiers fight in wars to protect our country. God also said to not murder/kill, but if it's done to protect others and yourself, do you think God would see it as wrong?
my personal beliefs, theologically speaking (or my godlogic thoughts), are that we are called to defend and to provide for the weak the oppressed the widow and the orphan, at which the Bible states clearly in the old testament in Deuteronomy (which btw the old testament still is relevant as Jesus Christ references it many times in his teachings). Before we are to press the oppressor with such actions of violence and theft we must take steps in trying to confront the problem with peaceful actions, trying to reason with the person/oppressor with Love and compassion, then with the oppressors unsound decision to turn down your proposal there should be a disciplinary action that follows, then a warning, then a action, then a warning, then a action, then a warning, and then another action. However the warnings are not of those of an aggressor they are those of a man who feels pain in the actions that took place those of a man who feels compassion for the oppressor he is trying to defeat, or change for the better of the person.
Think of Moses, moses was a man who was called to change the heart of an oppressor, he started with a proposal, then upon the pharaohs negligent unsound decision, Moses gave a warning, and upon the refusal of the pharaoh there came a disciplinary action, then moses approached the pharaoh with heart of compassion but still with a warning, each time the pharaoh refused the proposal the actions came more and more violent and deadly, causing pain in the heart of pharaoh and each time Moses came back with compassion but with a warning.
Now think about Robin Hood. The story of Robin hood starts with him approaching the king in the presence of the people with a proposal, the king rejects the proposal, Robin hood then gives a warning, the king still rejects the idea given, so robin hood then acts on the warning, he then approaches the king again with a heart heavy with the actions he had to take, the king still hard as stone refuses, Robin hood gives another warning, and upon the kings refusal Robin hood acts, eventually the king becomes more and more hard outlawing Robin Hood.
Robin Hood is in the right, he took the necessary steps that led up to his actions, same as Moses, and David warning his enemies, and Judas warning his enemies who were suppressing the Christians after Christ.
So in this sense, God is NOT making an exception, he has commanded to defend with the necessary steps we must follow and he has provided us with many historical lessons we can follow in order to approach an oppressor and take action towards that person. In fact I find it amazing the repetition in both Biblical and World history that covers this particular topic. YOU HAVE TO LOVE HISTORICAL CHIAISM'S, and REPETITIONS!
