And your post had nothing to do with authenteo.

1 Tim. 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

“Christina is American by birth, but a member of our General Synod, and chairwoman of Women and the Church (Watch), which struggles to free the Church of England from patriarchal prejudice.

“I had scrambled peacock eggs for breakfast,” said Christina, over her shoulder, as she stepped inside. “I need all the primal peacock energy I can get, to do battle with the bishops!”

And within an hour, turbo-charged by egg power, she’d explained the Anglican Communion to me, unravelled all its competing theologies, and made it appear suddenly quite clear that despite his recent nod in the direction of the conservatives, the Archbishop of Canterbury will eventually have to go with the liberal flow, to follow in the wake of America and embrace not just women bishops, but actively gay clergy as well.

Christina knew better. She picked up a cat from between her sandals, and said: “You want to know what the headlines will be on July 10?” Yes please. “They’ll all say the same thing: ‘C of E votes for women bishops!’ So hooray! It’ll be a wonderful day and a step towards redressing the great mistakes that were made in the first few centuries of the Christian Church.”

What mistakes? Christina looked surprised. “The suppression of women, of course. The early Christians were so keen to separate themselves from Goddess worship that they began to treat women as inferior. It was something Jesus himself never, ever intended.” So Jesus would have wanted women bishops? “Absolutely.” And actively gay bishops like Gene Robinson, would he have minded them? “No, not if they were in a faithful relationship, of course not.”

For Christina Rees and Bishop Jefferts Schori, perhaps for Rowan Williams, the ordination of women into the episcopacy and the ordination of gay priests are connected in a very basic way. At the heart of the matter is the liberal Anglican idea of who God is and what He wants from us.

“Come on! God is Spirit! So how do we know how He wants to be worshipped? We don’t.”

It is true that in my part of London, a nice lady priest and her girlfriend run their parish side by side, and in the next-door church, a gay priest and his partner do the same.”

Excerpted from: Coming very soon… women bishops

Egalitarian feminists are joyfully celebrating.

I, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, and Pastor Tommy Nelson will observe from afar and affirm Tommy when he preached: “the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church and that egalitarianism is Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

Some of the supposedly clear passages that are used to restrict women are anything but clear.

My take is that people make choices in their interpretation and one should only make the non-egal choice if REQUIRED to do so, based on the principles of love and justice. But this is hard to see if you view Scripture thru a non-egal lens.

This is what women need protection from.”

To see such rancid bitterness manifest itself ….

Ai-yi-yi-yi-yi. Not good.

Green Baggins, #25: “Sue, a couple of thoughts here. Firstly, the range of authenteo is by no means limited to negative “domineering.” That is one possibility, but by no means the only possibility. Even Baldwin, in his monumental, exhaustive study of the word did not conlude that domineer is an impossibility. See pages 49-51 of the second edition of _Women in the Church_. Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage. Add to that Kostenberger’s unshaken (and basically unchallenged) study of the syntax of “neither this nor that” such that both activities are viewed either positively or both negatively (and it is quite apparent that teaching is viewed positively, since negative teaching has another word for it), then authenteo is viewed positively as simply having authority. That is then negatived such that women are not to have authority over men in the church.”

Sue, #96: “This is the first time I have posted on a site where people don’t read Greek. I am not used to working from commentaries. I really don’t know what else to say. I can’t show you how it works if you don’t read Greek.”

Green Baggins, #97: “I have had 7 years of Greek, Sue, including 3 years of classical Greek at St. Olaf College, and 4 years of NT Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary. What on earth made you think that I don’t read Greek?”

Green Baggins, #100: “Fancy that, Sue. Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means. I don’t think it is the first time. …

You still have not answered the grammatical argument of Kostenberger. His argument does not depend on the meaning of authenteo. In fact, his argument heavily influences how we should read the verb.”

Green Baggins, #101: “Sue, my confusion over two very similar names should not lead anyone to conclude that I don’t read Greek. This does not give me much confidence in your powers of logic.

Sue, are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble? I have tried exceedingly hard not only to listen to your arguments, but to all the egalitarian arguments. I have tried to answer your arguments. As sad as your experience with men in the past has been, it in no way constitutes any reason why I should be convinced by your arguments. This is not to downplay what you have experienced. The interpretation of passages of Scripture cannot be based on our experience. Rather, Scripture judges our experience.”

Green Baggins, #104: “No, Sue, I have not in the least sidestepped Philodemus. I argued that just because we do not have the original any longer does not mean that we don’t have it. So your argument about it not existing is not valid.

…

Contrary to your assertion, Sue, I am not side-stepping your arguments. Rather, you are side-stepping mine.”

From Galatians 3:28 and Feminism

Please do look at this thread where Sue commits the root fallacy” in her lexical research.

Here’s are excerpts:

“Sue’s fantasies of interpretation arise out of the “etymological root fallacy,” an interpretive error common among the amateurs and those with special agendas.”

For an explanation of the root fallacy, click here . Also on this page is an explanation of an error dubbed “the overload fallacy.” It looks very much like what D. A. Caron has styled “the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy,” and Sue’s comments might well be an example of this interpretive fallacy as well.”

“Sue,

There’s no problem with running to a lexicon. The problem arises when one gets there and finds a range of meanings, dependent on context, which the lexicon-user then ignores, resorting first to an interpretive criterion alien to the text in which the word appears. This generates any number of word-meaning fallacies, some of which I referred to in that link I provided. The “root fallacy” is one of the more common of these.”

From: Egalitarian Flummery No. 2

When I say secondary, I mean secondary. Not unimportant, but secondary. There is primary, and secondary, and tertiary, etc. It is of primary importance that people “love one another” and “love the Lord with all your heart…”. In a liberal wicked culture, this means something **quite** different from the meaning it had in the context the early Church.

[Set off in Block Paragraph]

Thus the attitude which says “theology is very much secondary” and means “we can ignore theology as long as we all just get along” (as opposed to meaning “theology is secondary because it is a means to an end… an end which requires that sound theology but is more than just theology”) is, quite frankly, the kind of attitude which is at the heart of the modern apostasy… and the kind of thing you’ll regularly hear from the homosexualists and other heretics.

[End of Block Paragraph]

This is absolutely true. And so how did [this denomination] get to this place? It is because Christians have not loved each other. But I’m not talking about tea and crumpets and pasta dinners. I’m talking about love that stands up and confronts. “I opposed Peter to his face” out of love and “shall I come with a stick” out of love and “I am perplexed about you” out of love and “my soul takes no pleasure in cowards” and “remove such a one” out of love and “stop sinning or something worse will happen to you” and “reject a contentious man” out of love. It takes this kind of love to protect the church. This kind of love gains nothing for the one that dispenses it. It divides. It creates tension. It roots out. It is painful. This kind of love is born of only one place – a mystical union with Christ. A pure love of Christ and a powerful life unhindered by a bad conscience. It take the humiliation of confessed sins.

Theology teaches us skill in how to love, but you have to have the heart right first. A coward with a sword makes a useless soldier.

When is last time you (a figurative “you”) actually confronted a cantankerous person? When is the last time you stood ground and had others break fellowship with you? When is the last time you confronted a brother about his sins and had a complete mess on your hands as a result? This kind of love is what is missing, not some sappy feeling that says “you’re ok, I’m ok” or “include all at all costs”. I’m talking about the kind of love that excludes when necessary, and longs and burns for Christ, to the point it is willing to confront sin head on and not back down when the wicked threaten with instability.

Love is offensive, but “the wicked flee when no one persues”. However, the wicked don’t flee when Christians don’t love on the offensive. The wicked have not flown the coop because they are not scared. There has been a failure to love in the power of Christ. This kind of love always will “silence the enemy and the avenger.” (Psalm 8).”

Pastor Tommy Nelson has this kind of “offensive” Love in preaching biblical complementarianism and against the errors of egalitarianism. God bless him.

It was a poor statement and I acknowledge that.

Here is a clear Pauline prescription for woman’s role to bear children.”

Interpreted this way makes it a ‘work’ for salvation. No matter how you may try to explain it away…you are saying there is a WORK of salvation for all women in this passage of scripture. With your interpretation, we should be concerned for Mary Magdalene who was not fulfilling her ‘role’ as prescribed by Paul?

Also: “Childbearing” in this passage is a noun in the Greek denoting an event…The birth of the Messiah. It is not written in the future sense.

A ‘role’ is something we pretend to be or ‘do’. It is a French word used to describe the scroll used for actors. It also describes a ‘work’.

I am simply stunned that so many Christians have adopted this word. We are to be human BEINGS who ARE in Christ. Not playing ‘roles’ that are not specified in scripture for all women for all time. This would mean that any single woman on the mission field is in sin.

How do you guys explain away such passages as in Acts when women were fulfilling the Joel prophecy for the church age by praying and prophesying? How do you explain away the fact that Paul ASSUMED women were praying and prophesying in the Body in 1 Corin 11?

And WHERE in the OT or NT is that ‘law’ Paul mentions in 1 Corin 14:34?

I wish that I had read that paper you linked to earlier. Did someone really say this?

Eph. 5 used for “submit” (hypotasso) means one-way submission to authority and not two-way.

1 Clement 38.1:

“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

2 Macc 13.23,

”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (ὑπετάγη) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”

A king can most certainly submit to his people. It is most proper that he do so – and a queen too. That is the problem, submission does not mean to be subordinate. Christ did submit to death for our sake. I don’t know about the eschaton but clearly what Stinson said is not true about the Greek word “submit.” Not in a factual sense. Stinson ought to know this stuff. (I mean this sympathetically.)