RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread

RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

Message

sadiebelle -> RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread (4/21/2005 11:52:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oopsmartin I have a challenge for you who believe women cannot teach in the assemblies. Eliminate the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passages. And then how will you "prove" that women cannot teach in the church meetings and assume no ministries of authority. openly laughing What a Godly practice to start eliminating Scripture to prove or disprove a point! Hey, how about you ask us to post an answer by tying our hands behind our backs--no fair typing with your nose!? No matter...we can't talk about marriage within this thread, so if I were to take up your challenge, my hands would still be tied behind my back as I cannot even start with the various roles, stations, requirements of men and women in relationship to each other (single or married).

JoToP -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 11:53:47 AM)
quote: If anyone was arguing that having to submit to authority makes one unequal...then you have a point, but not one person has ever argued that there are none in authority and that people should not submit because it somehow impacts equality. It is pretty easy to win an argument in which no one is offering any disagreement... Congratulations if this is not your point of view, but I’ve been involved in this discussion for a long time (through about 4 threads in Old Crosswalk) and believe me, this has been a center piece of Martin’s argument along with those who have regularly followed his teachings. But, as I said before, it is a dead case now and can be laid to rest. quote: The discussion is not about whether or not authority/submission exist or is proper...but instead what is that nature of that authority and who is given that authority and is there a group of people never allowed to have certain types of authority... The nature of the authority is that it originates from Christ is passed on by his Apostles to the officers of the Church throughout the ages. It is Christ’s authority delegated. It is to be exercised in humility and service. It is essentially the distribution of the Gospel to Christ’s people for the purpose of building their faith. The authority is given to faithful men who meet the qualifications prescribed in Paul’s pastoral epistles. Those not allowed the authority are women, children and novices. That is the plain teaching of Scripture and it is how it has been understood by the Church throughout the centuries. (Strange that in the age of feminism it has been discovered that the Holy Spirit never bothered to teach the truth of egalitarianism to the Church for over 1500 years. Strange that in the age of evolution the Holy Spirit never bothered to teach the Church long-day creation for over 1500 years. Strange how many modern doctrines the Holy Spirit has hidden from the Church until the modern age liberalism, democracy and ecumenism. Such a plethora of doctrinal discoveries are rising up out of rationalistic theology.) quote: there has been sufficient scriptural evidence offered that puts the case of an existing class of people forbidden from certain levels of authority in serious doubt....which is why Martin offered the challenge ( not to ignore a part of scripture...but instead to set aside the common understanding of 1 Timothy to determine if it is actually this verse that is being misrepresented ...and by removing this error seeing if the whole house of card doctrine would fall No. I think Martin was saying that without that verse, we didn’t have a leg to stand on. But think about it. Martin doesn’t realize that he is also saying that with that verse we have a leg to stand on. Which means Martin must be sitting down. After shooting yourself in the foot its hard to stand on it. quote: setting aside a verse and setting aside an interpretation to test its validity are two separate things Why would anybody want to "set aside a verse"? The Bible is not subject to Scientific Method.

sadiebelle -> RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread (4/21/2005 11:54:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oopsmartin tsk tsk. Unnecessary! For everyone's information, we've been nudged by a mod in another folder, to stop with the "tsk tsk-ing". Don't fall into the trap of scolding one another...it's a TOS violation.

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:01:00 PM)
The bible is a unified revelations of God's word. Good doctrine is based on the entire word. No good doctrine is ever based on just one passage of scripture. One should be able to pull out an entire book of the bible and good doctrine will still be adequately supported by the rest of the bible. The prohibition of women as a whole teaching or being in authority is based completely on one possible interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Proof texts are then pulled out of context from other scripture to support that interpretation. Without the passage in 1 Timothy 2 or a bias based on one interpretation of that passage the prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no support in scripture. Also, all true doctrine found in the New Testament has a firm foundation in the Old Testament. The prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no foundation in the Old Testament. In fact, the Old Testament supports women teaching and being in authority.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:05:25 PM)
I agree, but then tell us how you reconcile both sets of verses using your defintion of setting aside which Martin said nothing of setting aside interpretation but setting aside the scripture itself. I would also ask how one could interpret 1 Timothy 2 and 3 wrongly, it's pretty clear and to the point.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:06:43 PM)
Is wrongly even a word? LOL

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:10:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura_bre The bible is a unified revelations of God's word. Good doctrine is based on the entire word. No good doctrine is ever based on just one passage of scripture. One should be able to pull out an entire book of the bible and good doctrine will still be adequately supported by the rest of the bible. The prohibition of women as a whole teaching or being in authority is based completely on one possible interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Proof texts are then pulled out of context from other scripture to support that interpretation. Without the passage in 1 Timothy 2 or a bias based on one interpretation of that passage the prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no support in scripture. Also, all true doctrine found in the New Testament has a firm foundation in the Old Testament. The prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no foundation in the Old Testament. In fact, the Old Testament supports women teaching and being in authority. I've been in a lot of churches and except for maybe cults or sects have not found any that do not allow women to teach as the Bible spells it out. Where in the OT does it ever affirm that the order in which God himself has established has ever been thwarted? Eve doesn't count.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:12:48 PM)
quote: Why would anybody want to "set aside a verse"? The Bible is not subject to Scientific Method. My question as well.

sadiebelle -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:13:35 PM)
quote: The bible is a unified revelations of God's word. Good doctrine is based on the entire word. No good doctrine is ever based on just one passage of scripture. One should be able to pull out an entire book of the bible and good doctrine will still be adequately supported by the rest of the bible. Actually, if we are talking about the church, the church, i.e. Christians is a new Testiment topic. We can look to the prophets and we can look at the shadowings of Christ in the OT but concerning the church as we know it, is found in the NT. quote: The prohibition of women as a whole teaching or being in authority is based completely on one possible interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Proof texts are then pulled out of context from other scripture to support that interpretation. Without the passage in 1 Timothy 2 or a bias based on one interpretation of that passage the prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no support in scripture. You said, "or being in authority". We can support "being in authority over men" with Scripture about submissiveness to men ALL OVER the Bible, as you suggest. It would make sense that you could only find it's relation to the church in the NT. You could look back at the levitacle priesthood, they were all men serving in the tabernacle, but that's not an accurate picture of church AFTER Christ's death. quote: Also, all true doctrine found in the New Testament has a firm foundation in the Old Testament. The prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no foundation in the Old Testament. In fact, the Old Testament supports women teaching and being in authority. If we are going to discuss prohetesses again, i.e. Deborah, it's like comparing apples and oranges in my opinion.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:14:23 PM)
quote: openly laughing What a Godly practice to start eliminating Scripture to prove or disprove a point! Hey, how about you ask us to post an answer by tying our hands behind our backs--no fair typing with your nose!? No matter...we can't talk about marriage within this thread, so if I were to take up your challenge, my hands would still be tied behind my back as I cannot even start with the various roles, stations, requirements of men and women in relationship to each other (single or married). Good points and I agree. It reminds me of one of my favorite Dana Carvey skits when speaking of the OJ Simpson trial. There is mounds of evidence scientific and otherwise against OJ and Johnny Cochran comes up and says "Why are we even having a trial?" "The man is innocent, that's clear, case closed."

bzirk -> RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread (4/21/2005 12:18:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved Everything that Jesus taught and did blew away everything used by both men and women to belittle each other. But where does Jesus ever say or do anything that tears down or criticizes the order of creation in which men bear a primary responsibility to lead, protect and sustain? I see nowhere in scripture where Christ did this. I see nowhere where Jesus opposed the loving headship of husbands or the limitation of the office of eldership to Godly men. Jesus must have favored eldership of only men in the church. He never spoke against it and again chose 12 men for his apostles. Jesus always spoke clearly against the very things that needed to be changed, yet I find nowhere where he chastises nor changes this. Jesus did purge leadership of pride and exalting of oneself and that he honored women greatly as persons worthy of the highest respect of God, but he did not change what Paul is speaking of in the several passages we have looked at. Of course women should not be excluded from ministry. There are many ministries open to men and women, the issue is whether any of the women serving with Paul fulfilled roles that would be inconsistent with a limitation of the ledership to men. From what I read in scripture, no they did not. Paul said that Euodia and Syntyche "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers"(Phil. 4:2-3) There is honor given for their ministry but no grounds for saying that the nature of their ministry went against the limitations that are in 1 Timothy 2:12. If that were the case and it could be said that they did in fact go against 1 Timothy 2:12 then Paul would have siad that the "deacons" mentioned in Phil. 1:1 with the "overseers" were fellow workers while he was there. But he doesn't. This is the best post you've ever made IMO.

JoToP -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:19:03 PM)
quote: The bible is a unified revelations of God's word. Good doctrine is based on the entire word. No good doctrine is ever based on just one passage of scripture. One should be able to pull out an entire book of the bible and good doctrine will still be adequately supported by the rest of the bible. That’s a pretty universal statement of hermeneutics. Where do you get that? Not that I totally disagree, but I’m not sure I’d want to go where you’re going with it. After all, we have doctrine which is taken by good and necessary consequence without any explicit Scripture proof whatsoever, like the Trinity, f’r instance. How far do you want to go with this view? quote: The prohibition of women as a whole teaching or being in authority is based completely on one possible interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Proof texts are then pulled out of context from other scripture to support that interpretation. Without the passage in 1 Timothy 2 or a bias based on one interpretation of that passage the prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no support in scripture. I’m surprised you’d say this, seeing you’ve been following this discussion for so long. You really believe 1 Timothy 2 is the only Scripture on this subject? Do I really have to bring up 1 Cor. 14 or 1 Peter 3? quote: Also, all true doctrine found in the New Testament has a firm foundation in the Old Testament. The prohibition of women teaching or being in authority has no foundation in the Old Testament. In fact, the Old Testament supports women teaching and being in authority. Apparently Paul disagrees with you seeing that he cites the Law as the foundation for the doctrine of womanly submission. 1 Cor.14:34

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:31:40 PM)
I keep seeing this statement about removing the Timothy passage, and I am curious on what hermeneutical principles can it be removed from consideration? I'm asking sincerely. Let's hear it. I ask that as someone who has studied hermeneutics and Greek, and has studied the Bible for decades. When I apply the principles of Prostestant Biblical interpretation, I cannot rule out the instruction in Timothy as one that is cultural or situational. It is in keeping with much throughout the scriptures. So even if you did take it out, women did not have formal authority over men with regard to things of the Lord, except only in exceptional situations. Otherwise, it just didn't happen. And byhisgrace is right. Jesus Himself did nothing to change that. He was pretty clear about what He thought too. I do see that He does not denigrate women and in fact elevates them. Paul elevated them as well to the status they should have had all along which is one of honor and respect, and that means respect of their knowledge and opinions as well. Just because someone is not the leader of something does not mean that their knowledge and opinions are not considered very important. I can't think of too many men (read that wise men) who don't very much consider their wives' opinions -- many times above their own.

JoToP -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:36:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bzirk I keep seeing this statement about removing the Timothy passage, and I am curious on what hermeneutical principles can it be removed from consideration? I'm asking sincerely. Let's hear it. I ask that as someone who has studied hermeneutics and Greek, and has studied the Bible for decades. When I apply the principles of Prostestant Biblical interpretation, I cannot rule out the instruction in Timothy as one that is cultural or situational. It is in keeping with much throughout the scriptures. So even if you did take it out, women did not have formal authority over men with regard to things of the Lord, except only in exceptional situations. Otherwise, it just didn't happen. And byhisgrace is right. Jesus Himself did nothing to change that. He was pretty clear about what He thought too. I do see that He does not denigrate women and in fact elevates them. Paul elevated them as well to the status they should have had all along which is one of honor and respect, and that means respect of their knowledge and opinions as well. Just because someone is not the leader of something does not mean that their knowledge and opinions are not considered very important. I can't think of too many men (read that wise men) who don't very much consider their wives' opinions -- many times above their own. Amen. Amen. And Amen. Did I mention, "Amen"?

joint heir -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:43:23 PM)
You and I sure can talk[:)]...we both have a lot of words.... quote: ORIGINAL: JoToP quote: If anyone was arguing that having to submit to authority makes one unequal...then you have a point, but not one person has ever argued that there are none in authority and that people should not submit because it somehow impacts equality. It is pretty easy to win an argument in which no one is offering any disagreement... Congratulations if this is not your point of view, but I’ve been involved in this discussion for a long time (through about 4 threads in Old Crosswalk) and believe me, this has been a center piece of Martin’s argument along with those who have regularly followed his teachings. But, as I said before, it is a dead case now and can be laid to rest. I have read through all of Martin's arguments and all the threads...I have never seen this ...I have seen the argument that to restrict a whole group fo people from authority makes those people inherintly unequal....we all submit to authority that does not make us unequal...If we are to use our gifts based on faith and grace and then a certain group is then limited based on their gender...that can mean no other thing than that group does not have sufficient faith or grace...which by definition is unequal. Do you see the difference?...but Martin can clear things up if I am wrong quote: The discussion is not about whether or not authority/submission exist or is proper...but instead what is that nature of that authority and who is given that authority and is there a group of people never allowed to have certain types of authority... The nature of the authority is that it originates from Christ is passed on by his Apostles to the officers of the Church throughout the ages. It is Christ’s authority delegated. It is to be exercised in humility and service. It is essentially the distribution of the Gospel to Christ’s people for the purpose of building their faith. The authority is given to faithful men who meet the qualifications prescribed in Paul’s pastoral epistles. Those not allowed the authority are women, children and novices. That is the plain teaching of Scripture and it is how it has been understood by the Church throughout the centuries. so the authority is the distribution of the gospel....it is given by Christ....but not to women....then how shall a woman teach the gospel to the unbeliever? without authority....and you have not adressed the woman who speaks prophesy.... I see what you have is plainly illogical and you have provided no scripture... quote: setting aside a verse and setting aside an interpretation to test its validity are two separate things Why would anybody want to "set aside a verse"? The Bible is not subject to Scientific Method. No one would .....you have improperly read my post and are creating a false idea....one that seems to be catching on....I know that you could not have missed the bright red word that said that to set aside a verse was wrong You need to correct the misunderstanding you have created with this post....I am going to assume that you were reading carelessly instead of intentionally misrepresenting what I said I agree that the Bible is not subject to the Scientific method...but our minds should be subject to sound reasoning...

i_believe -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 12:45:14 PM)
quote: since most agreed on page 1 that women will prophesy and did prophesy ...How is it possible that they can do this without authority?... There is an inherent authority/permission to use a gift that God has given but the context (how, when, to whom, etc.) is not open to the whim and fancy of the one receiving the gift. The permission to use a gift does not imply authority over those to whom you serve with the gift. That is a separate authority based on many scriptures in the NT regarding authority and leadership in the NT church(es). The gift of teaching in no way implies that you can assume authority over those receiving the teaching or that you can presume to teach those whom the scripture do not permit you to teach. Primarily women may not teach doctrine or have authority over a man in regards to the church(es) of God. Some have asked if that would preclude her from authority over men in the work place. That is not teaching and authority in the context of the church(es) of God, so I see no problem with it.

laura... -> RE: Women's role in the Church - One Stop Thread (4/21/2005 12:53:10 PM)
quote: But where does Jesus ever say or do anything that tears down or criticizes the order of creation in which men bear a primary responsibility to lead, protect and sustain? I see nowhere in scripture where Christ did this. Where in scripture is it stated that men have this primary responsibility? I see nowhere in scripture where men have been given such a responsibility.

joint heir -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:04:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: i_believe quote: since most agreed on page 1 that women will prophesy and did prophesy ...How is it possible that they can do this without authority?... There is an inherent authority/permission to use a gift that God has given but the context (how, when, to whom, etc.) is not open to the whim and fancy of the one receiving the gift. The permission to use a gift does not imply authority over those to whom you serve with the gift. I agree that it does not imply "authority over" but an authority in the sense that what you are saying or doing is truth from God....His authority through you....everyone still has a will to regard or disregard the teaching. I would also say that it is not open to whim and fancy but instead Romans instructs us to use the gifts based on the amount of faith and grace That is a separate authority based on many scriptures in the NT regarding authority and leadership in the NT church(es). The gift of teaching in no way implies that you can assume authority over those receiving the teaching or that you can presume to teach those whom the scripture do not permit you to teach. Would you describe what this type of authority would look like? In what way is it different from the authority to use a gift. I am referring to the difference between "authority to use gift" and "authority over". What are you basing your understanding of 2 types of authrority from....which verses? Thank you for answering my question so thoughtfully[:)]

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:19:07 PM)
quote: You really believe 1 Timothy 2 is the only Scripture on this subject? Do I really have to bring up 1 Cor. 14 or 1 Peter 3? 1 Cor 14:33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. This has been mentioned many times. The word for "silent" is not a word that denotes permanent or total silence. It is carries the idea of "hushed". Paul was speaking of disorder in the church. I've also read in many places that theologians do not know what "Law" Paul is referring to as there is no such Old Testament or Jewish law. He may be referring to a Corinthian law. In which case Paul could be admonishing them to follow the law of the land in this regard in order to not bring reproach upon the church there. The first part of 1 Peter 3 is addressed to wives and husbands. Paul speaks about how wives and husbands should treat each other. He sums it up in verse 8 and 9. 1 Peter 3:8To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; 9not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. This has nothing to do with prohibiting women speaking in church or having authority.

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:21:30 PM)
The problem comes in when someone sees something as being taken away. Nothing has been taken away from women by saying that they are not to teach doctrine to a man who is of the church or have authority as a spiritual leader over a man who is of the church. What needs to be seen is that women have never been granted this. It is not theirs -- never has been. There is only one exceptional case, and even then it was a quasi civl authority, and not a woman being part of the priesthood. Yes, I believe if something happened once, it can happen again. But that's an exception and not something to set a rule by especially when we have plain words from Paul to the contrary. God had an ass speak to someone. That wasn't the norm either. Are we going to make a rule out of that? As to God granting men the responsibility to be leaders, it is patently obvious from what was done (choosing only men in positions of utmost leadership: all the apostles, all the elders chosen, all the authors of scripture, God's holding Adam to account and also Paul referencing Adam, and on and on and on). And what evidence is there to counter that? Deborah in the OT? The time of the judges? When the Hebrews experienced some of their most apostate activity? Or a few people who were giving service in the NT church? Thin. Thin enough to strain tea. Hey, I do believe there are exceptions, and I believe they still occur today, but that's just it -- they're exceptions. What women should see is that they have lots of freedom. They can teach to others besides men in the church (not a huge group from what I understand LOL!!!), and they can share and testify and reveal and relate and encourage others (men or women). There are a whole host of things open to women. They are not to be spiritual leaders (which includes teaching) to men in the church. So what? Why is this seen as such a horrible limitation?

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:25:56 PM)
I'm going to reiterate that I do not agree with the interpretation that women are to be silent at all times in the assembly. That interpretation is in conflict with women praying and prophesying. It does not agree with believers exercising the gifts in the assembly. I like Grudem's assessment of this, but it's a little too hairy to repeat here. Read chapter 6 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, pp 142-144.

laura... -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:28:05 PM)
quote: Why is this seen as such a horrible limitation? Because it is not a limitation set by God or His word.

bzirk -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:34:01 PM)
We disagree.

joint heir -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:34:44 PM)
If you can agree that there are exceptions then how can you say that there was a rule to begin with? Unless God's rules can be broken....He either says something or He doesn't ....How do we trust in a God that says one thing and does another....? I believe that the Bible is seamless in its perfection...and that if verses are appearing to be contradicting or "rules' are being broken...then in my mind it is us and our interpretation of what God is saying that is wrong....and we need to keep exploring until it all fits... I don't have all the answers...but I refuse to just accept the standard understanding when it appears to have exceptions and contradictions and seemingly random and illogical application edit for typos

Ginosko -> RE: Moving on... (4/21/2005 1:37:40 PM)
Laura, The prohibition of women as a whole teaching or being in authority is based completely on one possible interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 I would offer that that remark actually misrepresents of Paul's prohibition, Laura. Paul is specifically saying that it is impermissible for women to "preach" to men as if they were elders in the church for he says he does not permit women to "teach" or to "have authority" over men. Paul is not prohibitting women from "all" teaching nor is he prohibitting women from "all" types of leadership in the church. It's important that we all recognize that Paul's concern is more narrowly focused upon the specific gender roles that God himself has designed for humanity. To disregard male female distinctions, to abandon gender roles imperils the stability of the family, the church, and society at large. We must walk with great circumspection here fully recognizing that in correcting certain needed arbitrary gender inequalities that we do no mishandle the Word of Truth.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI