Every woman needs a head. According to the following sermon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZx0RJOf148

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In case you didn't know, all women are born with a head.

So Green - who was Ellen White head man when James died? Surely you can tell us, no?

John MacArthur is the senior pastor of Grace Community Church.
The Grace Community Church practices an Evangelical Protestant theology and is generally considered to be Calvinist although officially, it is classified as non-denominational.

According to one study: The version of headship theology presented at the General Conference’s Theology of Ordination Study Committee meetings was developed in the 1980s by several Evangelical Calvinist writers, especially Wayne Grudim, James B. Hurley and John Piper.

The whole thing is a demeaning of women as second class Christians. Though they will say it isn't, their next words always betray the reality of what they are doing.

The "head" that women need is "Christ" Who is head of the church.
If married there is a relationship to be nurtured which requires a certain amount of submission and respect for her partner.

But if single --

1 Cor. 7:34
The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

Calvinism - well what do you know! Chudleigh is still right.

https://session.adventistfaith.org/assets/468670

And so, with disdain, many dismiss the Bible texts, preferring rather to call their plain teachings by some heretical name.

Did you listen to the sermon?

FACT: God sees a man and woman (husband/wife) and calls them "man." As the husband is head of the wife, he is made the responsible party for the actions of either. This is why through one man, Adam, sin entered the world. Eve certainly did her part in transgressing first, but Adam was counted as the one responsible. Throughout the Bible, men are addressed predominately, and not women, because men are the heads. The fact that the Bible speaks more of men, and less of women, has to do directly with the Biblical headship model, and has little or nothing to do with translation.

It is only in the past century that women have claimed to take offense by the use of male pronouns to refer to people in general. This use goes back for thousands of years. In Spanish, it is still current. But the English-speaking Western culture now demands "equality" (it already existed) and think to obtain it by new grammar. Having moved in this manner with the language, the Bible suddenly is made to appear sexist and "discriminatory," which it never was before. The entire transition with the language is a brilliant maneuver on the part of the devil to sneak in other errors and rebellions into our modern culture, and to cause people to despise the Word of God.

Dedication, I'm especially concerned at how you have taken up with the negativity of many on this issue. You have always struck me as one who studied things carefully--until you came down in favor of women's ordination. Then suddenly, on this issue at least, your views were colored differently. May God bless your vision before you are taken too far out of the path.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What is the plain teaching of the Bible?

Exodus 19:4-6 You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.

But what did the people say? Exodus 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD has spoken we will do.

The Old Covenant was based on the promises of the people, who where afraid of God. What did the people do shortly after this?

Exodus 32:3-7 And all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a engraving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt. 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. 7 And the LORD said to Moses, Go, get you down; for your people, which you brought out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

The people had an orgy before the calf. Before the golden calf, all the people were to be God's representatives. After the golden calf, everything change. God separated the women and men in service. What this His first choice? NO. God condescended to their needs. The male priesthood was not the original plan. And look at the males God "ORDAINED", they were killers, who slew their fellow Israelites.

Exodus 32:27-30 Moses said to them, “This is what the LORD, Israel’s God, says: Each of you, strap on your sword! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other. Each of you, kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor!” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded. About three thousand people were killed that day. 29 Moses said, “Today you’ve been ordained to the LORD, each one of you at the cost of a son or a brother. Today you’ve gained a special blessing for yourselves.” 30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You’ve committed a terrible sin. So now I will go up to the LORD. Maybe I can arrange reconciliation on account of your sin.”

Arrange reconcilliation? Was God angry and needed to be appeased? NO. But the all of Israel thought so.

Exodus 32:34-35 Therefore now go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you: behold, my Angel shall go before you: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin on them. 35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Visit - does this mean God punished the people for the golden calf? No! This was a natural consequence of their sin. See how the term "visit" is used in the 10 Commandments. God does not punish the children for the parent's sin, punishing the children for the parents sin is forbidden in Deuteronomy and in Ezekiel. But the child do suffer as a natural consequence of the parents and grandparents sin.

Everything changed after the golden calf experience. God never commanded the people to bring all the sacrifices! The people coming out of the ancient near Eastern religions practiced all these things and offered sacrifice to appease God, for that what they thought they needed to do. Read Leviticus 1, did God command all the sacrifices? No. But IF the people brought sacrifices, then God told them how to do it. God's first choice? NO! As Jeremish 7 tells us, the people when backwards, not forwards. Ony God shines in this in that He continued to try to work with Israel.

The testimony of scripture is clear. God wants all to be ministers for Him. The rebellion is in those that want to stop God from bringing in His ideal will.

Come out of Babylon!

According to the OP -- The topic of this thread, was not another "does God punish" thread.

That totally derailed too many topics already.

Who are you talking to? And who started this thread? And why is there so much male centered talk in the Bible? Do you disagree with what I said dedication, if indeed you are talking to me.

Did you listen to Green's video he posted? Right at the start, the speaker misinterprets the Bible and the cause of the curse in Genesis 3. Did you catch that? Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.

Personally, I don't care if the GC votes "yes" or "no" on the ordination issue. The thing I worry about is the ideas and philosophies that are being pushed into the church under the guise of opposing ordination of women.

Most of the arguments have nothing to do with the actual subject of ordination, but make women feel like they are second class Christians, even if they are only members of the congregation.



THE QUESTION--

Does scripture speak mainly with a few exceptions to men and not to women?
Or does it speak to men and women alike?

If, when the Bible in the many, many instances when it uses the male gender only, means it is speaking to men directly and not to women because women are not responsible -- then why should I even study the scriptures -- if God is not speaking to me -- a woman?

Now, it's true most have understood that the term "men" or "man" means "human" and is not limited to one gender.
However, the debates that supposedly oppose "women ordination" have thrown a serious dagger into that understanding.

The argument -- " Throughout the Bible, men are addressed predominately, and not women, because men are the heads" carries the implication, that God is NOT speaking directly to women, but actually to men.

Many of those arguments, if taken to their natural conclusion are not about ordination at all, they are about SUBJECTION and CONTROL.


Whatever the "head" believes -- his wife is supposed to believe?
Whatever the ordained "head" of the church teaches is the authority?
Whatever the ordained "head" says -- is to be regarded as the authority (in the place of Christ) voice.
Is that really God's will?



As far as I understand scripture we are responsible for what we believe and we are NOT to submit to things that are not "fit in the Lord".

Most of the precious promises are male gender in their presentation. Are they not addressed equally directly to women? So what is wrong with having a "woman's Bible" that directs the promises directly to her heart?