Xan Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,060 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 18 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/02/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/23/1970 Share Posted October 13, 2008 In fact Paul says the woman is all the more accountable because it was her who listened to the serpent and sined first.. 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled (or deluded, see scripture4all.org) hath fallen into transgression: 1Ti 2:15 but she (singular, 'a woman') shall be saved through her child-bearing, (actualy this is a noun in the Greek, 'the childbirth', again see scripture4all.org) if they (plural, 'a woman and a man') continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety. Paul says 'Adam was created first then Eve' (notice his use of proper names) then he adds that 'Adam (proper name again) was not deceived' and he says but this woman 'has fallen' into transgression indicating that he's not talking about 'Eve' becasue this shows that the woman (of v.11) is continuing in this condition yet Eve was dead, plus Paul also said that this woman is 'being deluded'. Eve though came out of her deception and the traditional interpretation is no longer an acceptable one, that all women are deluded/deceived. The deceived woman of the Timothy passage though Paul had hope for as seen in his final statement. (Besides Paul says nothing of who sinned first, only who was formed/created first, and nothing about the serpent or who was accountable.) Paul holds Adam accountable in his other writings. Look again at the scripture you quoted above as I've highlighted what Paul wrote. Firehill is right. Those who sin willfully are held in a higher accountability than those who are deceived. Also men are held accountable for their spiritual leading in the household. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,093 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 437 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 The word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 Your counterpoint is unnecessary since that was not what I implied, though you my wish to twist it so. Wrong. I'm not limiting this words unbiblical usage, but it's application. It doesn't matter how you broadly define it, and whether or not my point was implied by you doesn't matter either, a man is not a role to play and neither is being a woman, nor a father or a mother. Again your counterpoint is unnecessary since that was not what I implied, though it does seem you are determined to twist it so. Implied or not, you didn't get my point. Your entire distorted retort above never addressed the subject matter in my quotes above. I was not talking about us being in the world but not of it. I was not talking about the government. I was not talking about us being police, or the police at all. I was not talking about putting people into boxes. None of this matters because it is you who wants to define what a man's role and woman's role is. That's where the problem with your usage of 'role' begins. My reply was addressing your rebuttal where you limited the use to the word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 Firehill is right. Those who sin willfully are held in a higher accountability than those who are deceived. Also men are held accountable for their spiritual leading in the household. On the idea that men and not women are leaders of their family I refer you to this post at complegalitarian: Biblical male leadership Do any passages in the Bible teach that men, not women, are to be spiritual leaders in houses of worship and in the home? Be sure to quote specific Bible passages to support your answer in support of a yes or no answer to this question. If you include references to headship, be sure to give biblical evidence for your claims about headship. In other words, we want all comments on this post to be grounded in actual biblical teaching, specific words of the Bible, not simply systems of logical thought that have been built up that interpret what the Bible means by what it says. Posted by Wayne Leman at 9:57 AM 9 comments Links to this post http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xan Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,060 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 18 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/02/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/23/1970 Share Posted October 13, 2008 None of this matters because it is you who wants to define what a man's role and woman's role is. That's where the problem with your usage of 'role' begins. It is not William that wants to define men's and women's roles, but the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 None of this matters because it is you who wants to define what a man's role and woman's role is. That's where the problem with your usage of 'role' begins. It is not William that wants to define men's and women's roles, but the Bible. Do you think that William's interpretation of the bible is infallible? Neither the bible or it's authority are the issue, interpretation is. William wants to claim that the bible defines men and women's roles as he interprets it, sees it, or hears about it and accepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,093 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 437 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 None of this matters because it is you who wants to define what a man's role and woman's role is. That's where the problem with your usage of 'role' begins. It is not William that wants to define men's and women's roles, but the Bible. Do you think that William's interpretation of the bible is infallible? Neither the bible or it's authority are the issue, interpretation is. William wants to claim that the bible defines men and women's roles as he interprets it, sees it, or hears about it and accepts. Actually, Firehill, I again remind you (though it may be an effort of futility) that my post clearly stated that it was "My understanding . . . It is my conviction . . . " Which in the balance has equal credibility to your expressed opinion. But, thank you for submitting Complegalitarian.blogspot.com as an infallible source to finally settle all this . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,093 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 437 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 I'm tired of hearing how people have a role to play. It's an attempt at trying to play God in saying so. Believe me, I could care less to continue on discussing subject matter that is shallow in it's worldview. If you stop parroting what you heard from Churchianity al la Grudem and co. then we can stop getting off the topic of this thread. Again, you have exhibited your both your ability to inability to hear what is being said as well as your intolerance to contrary perspectives. Your self exalted opinion is actually your handicap. You defend your gender as if it is a defense of the gospel its self to the point of rejecting simple biblical precepts . . . and then you retort about being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 None of this matters because it is you who wants to define what a man's role and woman's role is. That's where the problem with your usage of 'role' begins. It is not William that wants to define men's and women's roles, but the Bible. Do you think that William's interpretation of the bible is infallible? Neither the bible or it's authority are the issue, interpretation is. William wants to claim that the bible defines men and women's roles as he interprets it, sees it, or hears about it and accepts. Actually, Firehill, I again remind you (though it may be an effort of futility) that my post clearly stated that it was "My understanding . . . It is my conviction . . . " Which in the balance has equal credibility to your expressed opinion. But, thank you for submitting Complegalitarian.blogspot.com as an infallible source to finally settle all this . . . I thought this was a fair statement, saying you have your interpretation: 'William wants to claim that the bible defines men and women's roles as he interprets it, sees it, or hears about it and accepts.' You have your understanding of what the bible teaches (not says cause we know what it does not say), your conviction, your interpretation. I asked xan if xan thought that your understanding, interpretation, conviction was infallible. Brother, k, let's get off this and move on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 Again, you have exhibited your both your ability to inability to hear what is being said as well as your intolerance to contrary perspectives. Your self exalted opinion is actually your handicap. You defend your gender as if it is a defense of the gospel its self to the point of rejecting simple biblical precepts . . . and then you retort about being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts