I was curious to this belief after my boss at work has been doing this teaching on weekends in solitary in the spare rooms he can use to do bible studies I wanted to learn more and this video did justice to me good job I was atheist till I joined him never been more happier, and enlightened.
34:11 - "It doesn't matter how much you hate me, you can't stop me from loving you." This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.
The problem is that none of these speakers have demonstrated exegetical skills. They'd all get bad grades if they asserted these things in papers in my classes. You want to ignore historical, social, and religious context for 1 Tim 2:11-12, then I can take Paul at his word. All a woman needs to be saved is to have a baby. You can't claim context is needed for one and not for the other.
There's supporting local context (1 Tim 3:1-12 esp the explicitly gendered verse 11 with its contrasted scope of applicability), as well as other verses throughout. The sooner you PCUSA/UMC/ELCA types cease to exist, the better.
@@SeanusAurelius 1Tim 3:1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing. 1Tim 3:2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. 1Tim 3:3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy. 1Tim 3:4 They should manage their own household well-they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, 1Tim 3:5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church? 1Tim 3:6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell. 1Tim 3:7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap. 1Tim 3:8 In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money. 1Tim 3:9 They should hold on to the faith that has been revealed with a clear conscience. 1Tim 3:10 They should also be tested and then serve if they are without fault. 1Tim 3:11 In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do. 1Tim 3:12 Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well. 1Tim 3:13 Those who have served well gain a good standing and considerable confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. --------------- Personally, I identify more with AoG and Vineyard than UMC/ELCA etc.
What about the assertions in Scripture that Priscilla taught Aquila. Scripture asserts that Junia, a female, was an apostle. I don't dismiss passages as small. However, complemnetarians in all their forms have to go outside of Scripture to get their views and avoid and (deliberately) misinterpret passages, like asserting that Genesis 1-2 demonstrate complementariy.
No, you dismiss the bits you don't like as interpolations, and thus only need to heed the bits you like. We go straight to 1 Tim 2 and 3, 1 Cor 14, and 1 Peter 3 which plainly do talk of complementary roles. It's you guys who rely on interpolations/invisible quote marks, etc. FWIW, most of us assume that the roles that are limited to men pertain to a) the husband and wife relationship and b) local church elder/pastor roles. Those who go further are not our responsibility, in the same way that we can charitably act as though the degraded state of the various egalitarian denominations are not yours. Furthermore, Genesis 2 and 3 do demonstrate complementarity, most notably in the cursing, but also prior, in ch 2.
@@SeanusAurelius How you ever taken a course in hermeneutics? Can you read Greek? Have you read a book on textual criticism? It is false to read a passage in English, do nothing to study all he contexts out of which it came and declare that it is "clearly" something. What about your selective reading? For example, the misogyny evident in what people like John Piper and Al Mohler teach is flat contradictory to at least two biblical texts: "Love one another as I have loved you." Let's not forget "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28 NASB. I'm using that because I gather you wouldn't know what to do with my rendering of the Greek text. You ignore those statements that require believers to treat women not as tools for sexual gratification and housework, but as equal partners in God's purposes. Talk about skipping bits. A text without a context is a pretext for whatever you want it to mean. You want literal with no context? Then according to Ephesians 6, having slaves is totally fine. You're refusing to acknowledge that much in the NT letters is heavily reflective of the culture in which it was written. In Eph 5:21, all believers, regardless of gender, are told to submit to one another. What human in the church does John Piper submit to? What about you? Eph 5:22 tells wives to do the same. There is, by the way, no verb in 5:22. So Paul must mean that wives need to submit the way all believers are to submit to one another. Then, vv. 23-24 elaborate on how wives should submit. Note that this says wives submit to their husbands. There is nothing in Matthew through Revelation that says women must submit men. Period. Then, Eph 5:25-33 gives duties required of husbands. Of course, a complemetarian husband can tell his to clean the whole house while he watches a football game, and when that is done, the wife must make herself available for sex, no matter what he wants or how she feels. Complementarians read Eph 5:22-24 and think it means you can treat your wife like a new recruit in the Marines. You're fully allowed, according to John Piper, to abuse your wife too. Does that sound consistent with the love that both Jesus and Paul require of everyone? You're concerned about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. It ought to concern you that the MSS tradition shows these verses moving around. That means something odd is going on, something like the pericope of the woman taken in adultery, which is absent from the earliest MSS and present at the end of John 7 in some of them and between Luke and John in others. It seems like John didn't write those words. Back to 1 Cor 14. In 1 Cor 11:2-16, Paul recognizes that there are women prophets in the Corinthian congregation meetings, and they are prophesying, not announcing tea parties for the women of those congregations. If Paul recognizes these without a problem, how do we explain 1 Tim 2:9-15? I don't doubt that it is original, but why would Paul write something that seems to contradict what he himself wrote elsewhere? The best answer I can think of has to do with the religious and cultural context of Ephesus when Timothy was there. Should we let women read announcements? Should we allow them to sing with the males in the congregations? Are they allowed to pray out loud if the pastor wants everyone to pray the Lord's Prayer. The clear answer, in your way of reading the Bible is "no." Those verses are obvious. Do you allow women to sing in your church gatherings? If you do, you are deliberately disobeying Paul's words in 1 Cor 14:34-35 (or wherever those verses appear in various MSS). We don't even know what Paul is addressing. That would be important if we are going to apply this text properly. Since the whole church campus is where people gather for worship, women also cannot talk to people who check their children into the nursery. They are not to speak at Christian gathering. If you want to read biblical texts without any understanding of the situation they address, then you cannot have it both ways. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says they may not speak. How do you justify comprising Paul's command, if it is from Paul? What led Paul to write such an odd passage as 1 Tim 2:9-15? I'm going t read that literally. Any woman who gives birth will be saved. Who cares about what might have led to Paul saying this? I'd have to say that this is limited to the situation that Paul is addressing, whatever that might be, not giving an instruction for all time. If you disagree, have you gone to Troas to get Paul's cloak, per 2 Timothy? You also have a problem with 1 Tim 2:9-15 if you read it as unchangeable. Romans 16 flatly contradicts the idea that women should stay at home baking cookies. Junia was an apostle. That means that she taught and preached like other apostles, and possibly even healed people. That disagrees "clearly" with 1 Tim 2:11-12. Priscilla with perhaps some contribution from Aquila taught Apollos in Acts 18. Why didn't Paul stop that? I want to take all the relevant and irrelevant passages, research the original historical, cultural, religious and other aspects of the environment in which Paul wrote these things. Otherwise, don't preach to mommies because they are already guaranteed salvation according to Paul. If you don't like that clear understanding of the text, why is that? To quote the old saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You seem to be picking and choosing. What's worse is that complementarians are using 1 Tim 2:11-12 to apply to any role in the church besides making coffee and changing diapers in the nursery, as John Piper and Phillip Keller have, and Piper even went beyond that to Christian ministries that are not even churches. So, women can't use their spiritual gifts or calling because some misogynist male Christians, beginning in the late 20th century, have declared that women aren't good for anything but chores. Oh, and let's not forget the sexual abuse of babies, children, teen girls and women carried on by the same people who want to strip women of any meaningful role in the church. That's pretty clear too.
@@SeanusAurelius You guys are just as dismissive of Scriptures we find clear, such as Acts 2, Gal. 3:28, Rom. 16, Rom. 12, Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 12-14. The "interpolations/invisible quote marks" are the best ways to try to make the oozing infected sore thumb of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 compatible with the rest of ch. 12-14 and with 11:5. And no, nothing in the text of Gen. 1-2 suggest hierarchy between man and woman or husband and wife.
Culture has definitely changed things. But the husbands headship doesn’t change. Sadly crappy lazy husbands gave rise to egalitarianism where most wives do 80% of everything. I’ve known husbands that have never done laundry… or can count on both hands how many diapers they’ve changed. Those things aren’t women things, but parent things.😂
If the wife is home with children and the man is out making the money, it is the wife’s job then! see Titus 2:3-5 - women are to be keepers of their homes!
@@lightabounds77 Keepers of the home does not mean do everything at home and the husband does nothing at home. Do you think this reflects Jesus’ love? Titus 2:9 says to exhort your servants. So a stay at home mother can expect her husband to provide servants then? I guess he’s not a good husband if he doesn’t provide servants. 😂
@@lightabounds77 yeah, so that means a husbands don’t change diapers? Can’t wash the dishes? Yeah, the guy sits all day at the office and comes home to watch football and game all night… that makes sense. And you bet these dads snap into action if they have guests over, with their wives rolling their eyes. Seen this all too many times.
I had a pastor tell me as a young woman that when I die at least I don’t have to be a woman anymore. Pastors have said “I don’t want my wife to read a specific book and surpass me. Men built the world, women let us look at them naked. Women are homes for penises.” Women have been told for centuries to “suffer for Christ” and put up with their abusive husbands. Where are the Nathans? 1 Corinthians 11 even says men glorify God. Women don’t. So, we need to cover ourselves. But then in 1 Timothy 2 tells us how to wear our hair. I thought it was supposed to be covered? Sad and confused. I don’t thirst for authority but for worth. That is it. Why give women a voice? A brain? It doesn’t make sense.
I'm so sorry that you've been treated like this. I know it really means nothing when from faceless text on the internet, but what a horrible and un-christ-like way of treating a human being. If you're ever in Hobart Australia, come and grab a coffee with me and my wife (or just my wife!). We'd love to listen to you, and honour the image of God in you and attempt to treat you with the same worth as Jesus did when he went to the cross to redeem you at the cost of his life.
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” 1 Timothy 2:8, 11-14 The Bible couldn’t be clearer. In church and marriage women cannot lead men.
Agreed. That’s why I keep absolutely silent and never attempt to usurp the leadership role of men in church, by avoiding church. There’s literally nothing there for any woman not trapped in the Christian subculture.
@@joygibbons5482 Christian living is difficult for everyone which means rejecting God’s teaching makes it much easier to follow our own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. What brought you to watch this video?
Indeed. Adam was not deceived. He deliberately sinned, unlike Eve. Complementarian men are all power. Can you say, "Go home"? Also, submission is only for wives. It is not for all females among Christians. It is not complementarian. It is domination over women. Consider Mark Driscoll who said that wives should regularly give their husbands oral sex. That's complementarianism in action. None of this was asserted in Scripture. Further, before the Fall, Adam and Eve were not in a complementarian relationship. They were both equally in God's image. Period. Why didn't Adam stop Eve from eating? If he was in charge, he is more guilty than Eve. Were that not true, God would not have announce consequences for Adam. If they are "equal in dignity," why do men always get to boss around and even abuse women (with John Piper's approval!)? How does that demonstrate the dignify of the woman?
@@kennethlitwak2718 Do you not know that Christian leadership is not to be about bossing around others like among the Gentiles? Men are to be to women as Christ is to the church. Sometimes, that's washing feet, other times it's teaching. You don't know who Christ is or how he behaved. Furthermore, for the small amount of men who are teachers, they are going to be judged with double strictness. For those outside of Christ, that is terrifying, assuming you believe in the lake of fire. Even among the saved, it's going to matter. I'm a complementarian and that does NOT mean that I "get to boss my wife around". It means I bear the ultimate responsibility for some select big, important decisions that we make as a couple (yes, with the casting vote).
What is missing from these conversations is singleness. I go to a complementarian church mainly because I like my pastor. As a 59-year-old single professional, I find it sad that women are not allowed to be leading in any way except for the reading the word during Christmas or playing an instrument. Women are not allowed to lead a service in anyway. I am also ashamed that women have little voice in the church. The elders try but it is quite the boys club especially if you are not married. 50% of the population is single. What does this mean to us? We are typically ignored in the conversation. Since the word of God applies to everyone I find this 'theology of complementarinism' weak. How about instead a theology loving our neighbor? Gospel coalition is more concerned about roles it seems. John Piper and his made-up words. I actually went to his church many years ago and never had a conversation with a Pastor. It was the days of 'Flat Stanley' video pastor. There is no care for single women.
Living in it makes one feel more deeply the punishment of the curse. I think it’s extremely damaging to women and the gospel in practice- whatever the original intent of Paul’s words on it. And with the number of sex scandals in denominations and celebrity pastors growing by the day I wonder if we don’t need to pay as much attention to the sexual sin among males leaders. How many church leaders aren’t actually qualified and would have been taken out of the early church due to not meeting the qualifications.
Are you just being selfish? Your words make it seem like you covet power and authority. Why mention singleness if it is irrelevant? What is it that makes you covet leading a service? Is it like a forbidden fruit to you? Here is my advice. If you do not want to abide by Christianity and what is laid out in the Bible for us. Maybe you should go find a different religion. You have free will. That does not mean you get to impose your free will on others. Christianity is about surrender. Self denial. You seem to hate it so why not walk away? Otherwise you will destroy Christianity and create Suzanneity. Honestly, your message is very confused, irrational, possible self centered, a little immature. You do not even seem to be articulate. Where did you get the idea that you would even make a good leader? Please don't take my message the wrong way. I am also single for life and fail to see how it is relevant. As a monk, God is my spouse. What married couples share with each other, I get from God. You do realize that every single word in every language is a made up word? Please understand it is not the church, nor any members of the church that are not allowing you. It is scripture that is dictating to us. I am not trying to drive you away from the faith but being a Christian is not mandatory. It is an option. If you do not like it, you can walk away. It would be a sin to change it. Consider this... Would you rather obey God and go to Heaven. Even if it meant you don't get to play leader at church? Or would you rather force your church to let you play leader, even if it meant you and all your church go to hell? Your words make it seem that you do not have the calling to be a leader. I say this out of love. There are things in my life that I wanted to do, but I lacked what it takes to succeed and I just had to accept that and life goes on.
@@PracticalChristianWarfare You seem sexist. Are you suggesting women are never abusive? You should pay more attention to the world we live in. There are many evil, abusive women even ones who used the church to access their victims. Men are typically just humiliated and punished more severely but I am sure that is not a topic you want to delve in to as it does not fit your narrative.
The more I listen to complentarians talk about complementarianism, the more persuaded I am of egalitarianism. The way they define complementarianism is virtually identical to what egalitarians believe. The two groups would be better described as complementarian with or without gender-based hierarchy. It's ironic that how they describe "healthy complementarianism" sounds so much like egalitarianism. One of the men said complementarianism shouldn't be thought of as "men can do 100 things and women can do 98", but that's exactly how they made it sound! Trouble is, when they are forced to differentiate by defining it further they get themselves into all sorts of knots, because they're actually trying not to offend the culture. I suspect that most of the time when men invoke their "God-given authority", these speakers would label it "unhealthy complementarianism". You see, you don't need authority to serve another person, which is what both men and women are called to do for their spouse. You only need authority to compel people according to your will. Is that really serving them? Treating them as you would want to be treated? Jesus served. And people recognised his authority because of what he did, because of the character and fruit he showed in his everyday actions. And they willingly submitted themselves to his teaching and will. Because he SERVED. Not because God told them to submit to Jesus. The reality is that "authority" is only ever needed when the husband wants to take advantage of his wife, whether it's in a domineering way or a passive, lazy, manchild way. Complementarians will always be battling this because their theology gives men an excuse to "pull rank". This is not to say abuse doesn't exist in egalitarian marriages, but egalitarian theology cannot be easily manipulated to excuse that behaviour. The very nature of any human hierarchy, on the other hand, is that it can easily be abused.
I've heard plenty of bad, unbiblical sermons from men. I'd much rather hear teaching from Edith Humphrey, Marianne Meye Thompson, Sandra Richter, etc., any day of the week.
Yes, so where in the Torah does it say that women are not to speak in worship gathienrgs? That statement in 1 Corinthians 14 proves that those who see the command for women to be silent to be an insertion from a scribe, not the words of Paul.
So the first guy became a complementarian from watching his mom and dad. The woman fell in love with a faulty translation of God's Word and with applying absolutely no context. And the last guy became one by leaning on his own understanding about Jesus and the women around him. Not one of them, had a Scripture like she asked to support why they believe what they believe. There was virtually no Scripture in this conversation. Just opinions and personal experiences. Which is the main problem. Hindering the work of Christ based on feelings. Incredibly baffling and concerning.
Sad. On the other side, Craig Keener, Ron Pierce, Terran Williams, and P.B. Payne all started out as comps and their study of Scripture persuaded them to change. Williams and Payne each actually set out to conclusively prove complementarianism.
They should of bought aaron renn and douglas wilson to this conversation. The complementarian reformed camp have lost their way with biblical complementarianism.
@@danielmann5427 just listen to doug Wilsons recent stuff with guests on his youtube page. Biblically truth is timeless no doubt but sometimes its the application of these truths in our present context we neglect or arent effective in doing. There are alot of holes and questions that our culture and the reality of how we are practically doing complementarism that need answering. These men and women are just regujetating the same old same old.
@@danielmann5427 in the few of Aaron Renn and Douglas Wilson Complementarianism is a fudge and should be replaced by full bodied Patriarchy in all areas of Church and Society.
Complementarianism was coined in 1988 in reaction to rising feminism in the church. We shouldn't be inventing new words, and stop being ashamed for the patriarchy which is actually Biblical and brings glory to God and is good for both men and women.
after watching so many UA-cam tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mrs Olivia Renae Marks started managing my investments now I make $10,567 weekly. God bless Mrs Olivia she's been a blessing to my family.
Great work. I compliment your explanation especially at a time where egalitarian is rising inside the church rapidly. Great work!
I was curious to this belief after my boss at work has been doing this teaching on weekends in solitary in the spare rooms he can use to do bible studies I wanted to learn more and this video did justice to me good job I was atheist till I joined him never been more happier, and enlightened.
34:11 - "It doesn't matter how much you hate me, you can't stop me from loving you." This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.
Great Biblical discussion. Culture never trumps scripture.
The problem is that none of these speakers have demonstrated exegetical skills. They'd all get bad grades if they asserted these things in papers in my classes. You want to ignore historical, social, and religious context for 1 Tim 2:11-12, then I can take Paul at his word. All a woman needs to be saved is to have a baby. You can't claim context is needed for one and not for the other.
There's supporting local context (1 Tim 3:1-12 esp the explicitly gendered verse 11 with its contrasted scope of applicability), as well as other verses throughout. The sooner you PCUSA/UMC/ELCA types cease to exist, the better.
@@SeanusAurelius 1Tim 3:1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing.
1Tim 3:2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching.
1Tim 3:3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy.
1Tim 3:4 They should manage their own household well-they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect,
1Tim 3:5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?
1Tim 3:6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell.
1Tim 3:7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap.
1Tim 3:8 In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money.
1Tim 3:9 They should hold on to the faith that has been revealed with a clear conscience.
1Tim 3:10 They should also be tested and then serve if they are without fault.
1Tim 3:11 In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do.
1Tim 3:12 Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well.
1Tim 3:13 Those who have served well gain a good standing and considerable confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
---------------
Personally, I identify more with AoG and Vineyard than UMC/ELCA etc.
I so appreciate this conversation. Thank you.
awesome thanks sisters & brothers
Doug Wilson is a complementarian. Is that what you think Scripture teaches???
What about the assertions in Scripture that Priscilla taught Aquila. Scripture asserts that Junia, a female, was an apostle. I don't dismiss passages as small. However, complemnetarians in all their forms have to go outside of Scripture to get their views and avoid and (deliberately) misinterpret passages, like asserting that Genesis 1-2 demonstrate complementariy.
No, you dismiss the bits you don't like as interpolations, and thus only need to heed the bits you like. We go straight to 1 Tim 2 and 3, 1 Cor 14, and 1 Peter 3 which plainly do talk of complementary roles. It's you guys who rely on interpolations/invisible quote marks, etc.
FWIW, most of us assume that the roles that are limited to men pertain to a) the husband and wife relationship and b) local church elder/pastor roles. Those who go further are not our responsibility, in the same way that we can charitably act as though the degraded state of the various egalitarian denominations are not yours. Furthermore, Genesis 2 and 3 do demonstrate complementarity, most notably in the cursing, but also prior, in ch 2.
@@SeanusAurelius How you ever taken a course in hermeneutics? Can you read Greek? Have you read a book on textual criticism? It is false to read a passage in English, do nothing to study all he contexts out of which it came and declare that it is "clearly" something. What about your selective reading? For example, the misogyny evident in what people like John Piper and Al Mohler teach is flat contradictory to at least two biblical texts:
"Love one another as I have loved you."
Let's not forget "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28 NASB. I'm using that because I gather you wouldn't know what to do with my rendering of the Greek text.
You ignore those statements that require believers to treat women not as tools for sexual gratification and housework, but as equal partners in God's purposes.
Talk about skipping bits.
A text without a context is a pretext for whatever you want it to mean. You want literal with no context? Then according to Ephesians 6, having slaves is totally fine. You're refusing to acknowledge that much in the NT letters is heavily reflective of the culture in which it was written. In Eph 5:21, all believers, regardless of gender, are told to submit to one another. What human in the church does John Piper submit to? What about you? Eph 5:22 tells wives to do the same. There is, by the way, no verb in 5:22. So Paul must mean that wives need to submit the way all believers are to submit to one another. Then, vv. 23-24 elaborate on how wives should submit. Note that this says wives submit to their husbands. There is nothing in Matthew through Revelation that says women must submit men. Period. Then, Eph 5:25-33 gives duties required of husbands. Of course, a complemetarian husband can tell his to clean the whole house while he watches a football game, and when that is done, the wife must make herself available for sex, no matter what he wants or how she feels. Complementarians read Eph 5:22-24 and think it means you can treat your wife like a new recruit in the Marines. You're fully allowed, according to John Piper, to abuse your wife too. Does that sound consistent with the love that both Jesus and Paul require of everyone?
You're concerned about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. It ought to concern you that the MSS tradition shows these verses moving around. That means something odd is going on, something like the pericope of the woman taken in adultery, which is absent from the earliest MSS and present at the end of John 7 in some of them and between Luke and John in others. It seems like John didn't write those words.
Back to 1 Cor 14. In 1 Cor 11:2-16, Paul recognizes that there are women prophets in the Corinthian congregation meetings, and they are prophesying, not announcing tea parties for the women of those congregations. If Paul recognizes these without a problem, how do we explain 1 Tim 2:9-15? I don't doubt that it is original, but why would Paul write something that seems to contradict what he himself wrote elsewhere? The best answer I can think of has to do with the religious and cultural context of Ephesus when Timothy was there. Should we let women read announcements? Should we allow them to sing with the males in the congregations? Are they allowed to pray out loud if the pastor wants everyone to pray the Lord's Prayer. The clear answer, in your way of reading the Bible is "no." Those verses are obvious. Do you allow women to sing in your church gatherings? If you do, you are deliberately disobeying Paul's words in 1 Cor 14:34-35 (or wherever those verses appear in various MSS). We don't even know what Paul is addressing. That would be important if we are going to apply this text properly. Since the whole church campus is where people gather for worship, women also cannot talk to people who check their children into the nursery. They are not to speak at Christian gathering. If you want to read biblical texts without any understanding of the situation they address, then you cannot have it both ways. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says they may not speak. How do you justify comprising Paul's command, if it is from Paul?
What led Paul to write such an odd passage as 1 Tim 2:9-15? I'm going t read that literally. Any woman who gives birth will be saved. Who cares about what might have led to Paul saying this? I'd have to say that this is limited to the situation that Paul is addressing, whatever that might be, not giving an instruction for all time. If you disagree, have you gone to Troas to get Paul's cloak, per 2 Timothy?
You also have a problem with 1 Tim 2:9-15 if you read it as unchangeable. Romans 16 flatly contradicts the idea that women should stay at home baking cookies. Junia was an apostle. That means that she taught and preached like other apostles, and possibly even healed people. That disagrees "clearly" with 1 Tim 2:11-12. Priscilla with perhaps some contribution from Aquila taught Apollos in Acts 18. Why didn't Paul stop that? I want to take all the relevant and irrelevant passages, research the original historical, cultural, religious and other aspects of the environment in which Paul wrote these things. Otherwise, don't preach to mommies because they are already guaranteed salvation according to Paul. If you don't like that clear understanding of the text, why is that?
To quote the old saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You seem to be picking and choosing. What's worse is that complementarians are using 1 Tim 2:11-12 to apply to any role in the church besides making coffee and changing diapers in the nursery, as John Piper and Phillip Keller have, and Piper even went beyond that to Christian ministries that are not even churches. So, women can't use their spiritual gifts or calling because some misogynist male Christians, beginning in the late 20th century, have declared that women aren't good for anything but chores. Oh, and let's not forget the sexual abuse of babies, children, teen girls and women carried on by the same people who want to strip women of any meaningful role in the church. That's pretty clear too.
@@SeanusAurelius You guys are just as dismissive of Scriptures we find clear, such as Acts 2, Gal. 3:28, Rom. 16, Rom. 12, Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 12-14.
The "interpolations/invisible quote marks" are the best ways to try to make the oozing infected sore thumb of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 compatible with the rest of ch. 12-14 and with 11:5.
And no, nothing in the text of Gen. 1-2 suggest hierarchy between man and woman or husband and wife.
Culture has definitely changed things. But the husbands headship doesn’t change. Sadly crappy lazy husbands gave rise to egalitarianism where most wives do 80% of everything. I’ve known husbands that have never done laundry… or can count on both hands how many diapers they’ve changed. Those things aren’t women things, but parent things.😂
You are not intelligent. You shouldnt speak
If the wife is home with children and the man is out making the money, it is the wife’s job then! see Titus 2:3-5 - women are to be keepers of their homes!
@@lightabounds77 Keepers of the home does not mean do everything at home and the husband does nothing at home. Do you think this reflects Jesus’ love? Titus 2:9 says to exhort your servants. So a stay at home mother can expect her husband to provide servants then? I guess he’s not a good husband if he doesn’t provide servants. 😂
Actually the laziest husbands I know LOVE "complementarianism"/patriarchy.
@@lightabounds77 yeah, so that means a husbands don’t change diapers? Can’t wash the dishes? Yeah, the guy sits all day at the office and comes home to watch football and game all night… that makes sense. And you bet these dads snap into action if they have guests over, with their wives rolling their eyes. Seen this all too many times.
I had a pastor tell me as a young woman that when I die at least I don’t have to be a woman anymore.
Pastors have said “I don’t want my wife to read a specific book and surpass me. Men built the world, women let us look at them naked. Women are homes for penises.”
Women have been told for centuries to “suffer for Christ” and put up with their abusive husbands.
Where are the Nathans?
1 Corinthians 11 even says men glorify God. Women don’t. So, we need to cover ourselves. But then in 1 Timothy 2 tells us how to wear our hair. I thought it was supposed to be covered?
Sad and confused. I don’t thirst for authority but for worth. That is it. Why give women a voice? A brain? It doesn’t make sense.
I'm so sorry that you've been treated like this. I know it really means nothing when from faceless text on the internet, but what a horrible and un-christ-like way of treating a human being.
If you're ever in Hobart Australia, come and grab a coffee with me and my wife (or just my wife!). We'd love to listen to you, and honour the image of God in you and attempt to treat you with the same worth as Jesus did when he went to the cross to redeem you at the cost of his life.
@ you and your wife sound amazing. Thank you both so much
Thank you for this my brothers and sisters … The Word of God is so amazing.
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
1 Timothy 2:8, 11-14
The Bible couldn’t be clearer. In church and marriage women cannot lead men.
Agreed. That’s why I keep absolutely silent and never attempt to usurp the leadership role of men in church, by avoiding church. There’s literally nothing there for any woman not trapped in the Christian subculture.
@@joygibbons5482 Christian living is difficult for everyone which means rejecting God’s teaching makes it much easier to follow our own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. What brought you to watch this video?
Indeed. Adam was not deceived. He deliberately sinned, unlike Eve. Complementarian men are all power. Can you say, "Go home"? Also, submission is only for wives. It is not for all females among Christians. It is not complementarian. It is domination over women. Consider Mark Driscoll who said that wives should regularly give their husbands oral sex. That's complementarianism in action. None of this was asserted in Scripture.
Further, before the Fall, Adam and Eve were not in a complementarian relationship. They were both equally in God's image. Period. Why didn't Adam stop Eve from eating? If he was in charge, he is more guilty than Eve. Were that not true, God would not have announce consequences for Adam.
If they are "equal in dignity," why do men always get to boss around and even abuse women (with John Piper's approval!)? How does that demonstrate the dignify of the woman?
What's the context? Yours is a terrible reading. And if it were that simplistic, it would be self-evident.
@@kennethlitwak2718 Do you not know that Christian leadership is not to be about bossing around others like among the Gentiles? Men are to be to women as Christ is to the church. Sometimes, that's washing feet, other times it's teaching. You don't know who Christ is or how he behaved.
Furthermore, for the small amount of men who are teachers, they are going to be judged with double strictness. For those outside of Christ, that is terrifying, assuming you believe in the lake of fire. Even among the saved, it's going to matter.
I'm a complementarian and that does NOT mean that I "get to boss my wife around". It means I bear the ultimate responsibility for some select big, important decisions that we make as a couple (yes, with the casting vote).
What is missing from these conversations is singleness. I go to a complementarian church mainly because I like my pastor. As a 59-year-old single professional, I find it sad that women are not allowed to be leading in any way except for the reading the word during Christmas or playing an instrument. Women are not allowed to lead a service in anyway. I am also ashamed that women have little voice in the church. The elders try but it is quite the boys club especially if you are not married. 50% of the population is single. What does this mean to us? We are typically ignored in the conversation. Since the word of God applies to everyone I find this 'theology of complementarinism' weak. How about instead a theology loving our neighbor? Gospel coalition is more concerned about roles it seems. John Piper and his made-up words. I actually went to his church many years ago and never had a conversation with a Pastor. It was the days of 'Flat Stanley' video pastor. There is no care for single women.
Are you suggesting married women have more voice than single women? How?
@@gtsuiwu No.. Women (all)have no voice in the church.
Living in it makes one feel more deeply the punishment of the curse. I think it’s extremely damaging to women and the gospel in practice- whatever the original intent of Paul’s words on it. And with the number of sex scandals in denominations and celebrity pastors growing by the day I wonder if we don’t need to pay as much attention to the sexual sin among males leaders. How many church leaders aren’t actually qualified and would have been taken out of the early church due to not meeting the qualifications.
Are you just being selfish? Your words make it seem like you covet power and authority. Why mention singleness if it is irrelevant? What is it that makes you covet leading a service? Is it like a forbidden fruit to you?
Here is my advice. If you do not want to abide by Christianity and what is laid out in the Bible for us. Maybe you should go find a different religion. You have free will. That does not mean you get to impose your free will on others. Christianity is about surrender. Self denial. You seem to hate it so why not walk away? Otherwise you will destroy Christianity and create Suzanneity.
Honestly, your message is very confused, irrational, possible self centered, a little immature. You do not even seem to be articulate. Where did you get the idea that you would even make a good leader? Please don't take my message the wrong way. I am also single for life and fail to see how it is relevant. As a monk, God is my spouse. What married couples share with each other, I get from God. You do realize that every single word in every language is a made up word?
Please understand it is not the church, nor any members of the church that are not allowing you. It is scripture that is dictating to us. I am not trying to drive you away from the faith but being a Christian is not mandatory. It is an option. If you do not like it, you can walk away. It would be a sin to change it.
Consider this... Would you rather obey God and go to Heaven. Even if it meant you don't get to play leader at church? Or would you rather force your church to let you play leader, even if it meant you and all your church go to hell? Your words make it seem that you do not have the calling to be a leader. I say this out of love. There are things in my life that I wanted to do, but I lacked what it takes to succeed and I just had to accept that and life goes on.
@@PracticalChristianWarfare You seem sexist. Are you suggesting women are never abusive? You should pay more attention to the world we live in. There are many evil, abusive women even ones who used the church to access their victims. Men are typically just humiliated and punished more severely but I am sure that is not a topic you want to delve in to as it does not fit your narrative.
The more I listen to complentarians talk about complementarianism, the more persuaded I am of egalitarianism.
The way they define complementarianism is virtually identical to what egalitarians believe. The two groups would be better described as complementarian with or without gender-based hierarchy.
It's ironic that how they describe "healthy complementarianism" sounds so much like egalitarianism. One of the men said complementarianism shouldn't be thought of as "men can do 100 things and women can do 98", but that's exactly how they made it sound! Trouble is, when they are forced to differentiate by defining it further they get themselves into all sorts of knots, because they're actually trying not to offend the culture.
I suspect that most of the time when men invoke their "God-given authority", these speakers would label it "unhealthy complementarianism". You see, you don't need authority to serve another person, which is what both men and women are called to do for their spouse. You only need authority to compel people according to your will. Is that really serving them? Treating them as you would want to be treated?
Jesus served. And people recognised his authority because of what he did, because of the character and fruit he showed in his everyday actions. And they willingly submitted themselves to his teaching and will. Because he SERVED. Not because God told them to submit to Jesus. The reality is that "authority" is only ever needed when the husband wants to take advantage of his wife, whether it's in a domineering way or a passive, lazy, manchild way. Complementarians will always be battling this because their theology gives men an excuse to "pull rank". This is not to say abuse doesn't exist in egalitarian marriages, but egalitarian theology cannot be easily manipulated to excuse that behaviour. The very nature of any human hierarchy, on the other hand, is that it can easily be abused.
I've heard plenty of bad, unbiblical sermons from men. I'd much rather hear teaching from Edith Humphrey, Marianne Meye Thompson, Sandra Richter, etc., any day of the week.
It's not a matter of competence. No spiritual gifting is. It's a matter of calling.
Carmen Imes and Cherith Nordling are also excellent.
Yes, so where in the Torah does it say that women are not to speak in worship gathienrgs? That statement in 1 Corinthians 14 proves that those who see the command for women to be silent to be an insertion from a scribe, not the words of Paul.
The bits where they're excluded from the assembly and the priesthood.
It’s directly from the Roman household codes. Many scholars are aware of this.
They need to get someone who disagrees with them on the program
It's not a debate.
No, they didn't need to because they wanted helpful answers.
You missed the title of the presentation !
Yes!!!
So we're going back to Jesus's time, where a women has no value without a man, but of course a man has value in the Church without a women.
Have you not read proverbs 31
So the first guy became a complementarian from watching his mom and dad. The woman fell in love with a faulty translation of God's Word and with applying absolutely no context. And the last guy became one by leaning on his own understanding about Jesus and the women around him. Not one of them, had a Scripture like she asked to support why they believe what they believe. There was virtually no Scripture in this conversation. Just opinions and personal experiences. Which is the main problem. Hindering the work of Christ based on feelings. Incredibly baffling and concerning.
Faulty translation according to…?
@@dmbsituation According to the Bible.
You are spot on, my friend!
Sad.
On the other side, Craig Keener, Ron Pierce, Terran Williams, and P.B. Payne all started out as comps and their study of Scripture persuaded them to change. Williams and Payne each actually set out to conclusively prove complementarianism.
They should of bought aaron renn and douglas wilson to this conversation. The complementarian reformed camp have lost their way with biblical complementarianism.
How so?
I really want to know
Love listening to Doug wilson
@@danielmann5427 just listen to doug Wilsons recent stuff with guests on his youtube page. Biblically truth is timeless no doubt but sometimes its the application of these truths in our present context we neglect or arent effective in doing. There are alot of holes and questions that our culture and the reality of how we are practically doing complementarism that need answering. These men and women are just regujetating the same old same old.
@@danielmann5427 in the few of Aaron Renn and Douglas Wilson Complementarianism is a fudge and should be replaced by full bodied Patriarchy in all areas of Church and Society.
Complementarianism was coined in 1988 in reaction to rising feminism in the church. We shouldn't be inventing new words, and stop being ashamed for the patriarchy which is actually Biblical and brings glory to God and is good for both men and women.
$32,000 weekly profit Our lord Jesus have lifted up my Life!!!
please how, am still a newbie on investment trading.
it's all thanks to Mrs Olivia Renae Marks, her trading strategies are the best
after watching so many UA-cam tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mrs Olivia Renae Marks started managing my investments now I make $10,567 weekly. God bless Mrs Olivia she's been a blessing to my family.
She has really made a good name for herself Please how can l contact expert Olivia Renae Marks?
WhatsApp>>> Messenger👆🏻 👆🏻