Question of female leadership [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Question of female leadership

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 09:18 AM

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 09:20 AM

SHe introduced me to Calvin, Beza, Zanchious et all, THe husband wanted me to read Oscar Romaero!!!!!!!!

GraceAmbassador

06-14-2005, 10:16 AM

They are no longer at our church, but I still am in contact with them. The husband is now an assistant pastor in Holland, she is working at Western Seminary.

I live in Holland, Michigan, three blocks away from Western Seminary. I would like to know the name of this man as I know that Western keeps the conservative view and I wonder what he is doing there... as "bent on Liberation Theology. Is it possible that yoou would give me his name?

Milt

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 10:55 AM

I live in Holland, Michigan, three blocks away from Western Seminary. I would like to know the name of this man as I know that Western keeps the conservative view and I wonder what he is doing there... as "bent on Liberation Theology. Is it possible that yoou would give me his name?

Milt

He is not at Western, but She is now. He is beginning a Pastor position in Holland.

WHat about my quandry Milt? hahahahahahahaa

From a pasotr, I would appreciate your view

ray kikkert

06-14-2005, 11:22 AM

I briefly spoke to Brandan about this issue a few days ago. IF anyone would like to comment I would appreciate it.

The Reformed Church I attend had a female ordained minister, spouse of the Sr. Pastor. THis always doscouraged me, but I found myself in a bigger dilema once I heard her talk.

Here is the quandry I faced in a nutshell.

The Husband had a serious bent to Liberation Theology. The wife was very solid in refomred High Grace understanding. I learned more from her than him. This caused me much discomfort because of the issue of female leadership.

They are no longer at our church, but I still am in contact with them. The husband is now an assistant pastor in Holland, she is working at Western Seminary.

Please help me understand this situation in relationship to Paul and women in leadership. I still question the situation, but one thing remains consistant is her love for Absolute Predestination and Definate Atonement, vs his love for anythign but.

The following is a solid refutation of women as office bearers within the church. It is also a wake up call to the man who resembles a cowardly dog with his tail between his legs , exposing a weak bladder when called upon by God to serve Him within the church.

Women In Church Office

Rev. Ron Cammenga
Quotes:

"Whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think, God is better pleased with a woman who considers the condition God has assigned to her as a calling and submits to it, not refusing to bear the distaste of (cooking) food, the illness, the difficulty, or rather the fearful anguish associated with childbirth or anything else that is her duty -- God is better pleased with her than if she were to make some great display of heroic virtues and refuse to accept the vocation given her by God."

John Calvin on I Tim. 2:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+2:15).

"A woman undertakes no small share of the whole administration, being the keeper of the house. And without her not even political affairs could be properly conducted. For if their domestic concerns were in a state of confusion and disorder, those who are engaged in public affairs would be kept at home, and political business would be ill managed. So that neither in those matters, as neither in spiritual, is she inferior."

John Chrysostom.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"

I Timothy 2:11, 12, 15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+2:11,12,15). WOMEN IN CHURCH OFFICE

To say that the subject of this pamphlet is a live issue in the church world of our day is to state the obvious. Certainly the role of the woman is a much discussed issue in the world at large, and especially in modern American society. We live in the day of women's liberation, women's rights, and the feminist movement. Women are clamoring for equality with men and are seeking fulfillment not in the home and not in raising a family, but in the profession, and careers traditionally occupied by men. The women's movement has become highly organized, a political force to be reckoned with. An organization like NOW (National Organization for Women) is devoted to political action and the spreading of propaganda on behalf of the women's rights movement. All across our country organizations traditionally open only to men, from high school soccer teams to the Jaycees, are being pressured to admit women.

It is not surprising, therefore, that there is also a parallel movement in the churches pushing for the admittance of women into the special office the offices of minister, elder, and deacon. The general assemblies and synods of the churches have been very busy with this question in the last few years, and from the looks of things will continue to be occupied with the issue for some time to come. The 'journals and church magazines carry many articles, both pro and con, on the question. Several books have been written on the subject. Women are enrolling in increasing numbers in the seminaries. And many churches, some with and some without the approval of the broader assemblies, are actively ordaining women into the offices.

In this pamphlet we want to consider this question of women in church office. At the outset, we want to clear up a common misconception and misrepresentation. Often the two sides on this issue are divided into those who are "for" women and those who are "against" women. The position "for" women means that women can do anything men can do, may hold any office that men may hold. All possible distinctions are to be erased. The position "against" women means that women are not allowed to do all that men do, are not allowed to hold every office that men hold, and are called to be in submission to the man in the home and in the church.

At best this is a serious misconception; at worst it is a deliberate and malicious misrepresentation. It is our conviction that the Bible does not allow the woman to hold every office that the man holds and that the woman is called to be in submission to the man in home and in the church. But this is not a position "against" women, but a position "for" women, really the only position "for" the women. The Bible is "for" women, that is, the Bible has the woman's own best interests in view and prescribes what is best for the woman herself. Exactly because the church is motivated by the good of the women themselves, the church must be committed to adhere to the Bible's teaching on the question of women in office. The Biblical Position On This Question

The Bible prescribes a large and important place for women in God's Church.

This is plain, first of all, from Jesus' relationship with several women. Jesus was interested in and took the time to minister to the needs of women, and not once did Jesus treat women in a demeaning way or regard them as inferior. He cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene. He preached the gospel to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. He defended and forgave the woman taken in adultery. He raised the son of the widow of Nain, and freed the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman from a devil. Several women were especially close to Jesus and enjoyed a warm, personal relationship with the Savior. The most prominent of these were Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus; and Mary Magdalene. The women were strikingly, the last to leave the scene of Jesus' crucifixion and were the first ones to whom the gospel of the resurrection was preached. The Savior, however, called none of these women to be one of His 12 disciples, nor later sent any of them out as one of the apostles.

This same large place is accorded women in the early church. There were several women among the 120 disciples in the upper room when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Day of Pentecost. We read often of the women of the church in the record of Acts. Several women served both the apostles and the people of God. There was Dorcas, or Tabitha, who was raised from the dead by Peter, concerning whom we read that she "was full of good works and almsdeeds," Acts 9:36 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Acts+9:36). The first convert of the Apostle Paul at Philippi was Lydia, the seller of purple. Paul remembered the unfeigned faith of young Timothy, which dwelt first in his grand-mother Lois and in his mother Eunice. From these godly women, Timothy had first learned the Scriptures, II Tim. 1:1-5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=II+Tim+1:1-5). Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila, was of great help to the Apostle Paul in his missionary labors.

One certainly cannot accuse the apostles of mistreating women, or of ignoring women, or of allowing women no place in the life or the church. They honored the women and spoke highly of them. They valued their services and encouraged and commended them highly. But the apostles did not ordain women into the offices of minister, elder, or deacon. These women assisted the apostles, cared for the poor, instructed the younger women, kept their homes and reared their children in the fear of God, but they did not preach, they did not sit in the elders' bench, and they did not serve in the office of deacon.

This important and large place which the Scriptures give to women is in keeping with the Scripture's teaching on the equality of the woman with the man. The Scripture's teaching that the woman is to be in submission to the man and that the woman is "the weaker vessel", does not take away from a certain equality of man and woman.

This indicates that the whole question of women in office is not a question of the woman's equality with man. Equality and difference of role are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are two aspects of Scripture's teaching on this issue.

There is a certain Biblical equality of the woman with the man. The creation already brings this out: both man and woman are created in God's image, Gen. 1:27 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+1:27); and God's command to exercise dominion over the creation comes to both the man and the woman, according to Gen. 1:28 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+1:28). The fact is that in the very passages in the New Testament which teach the headship of the man over the woman there always appears a statement about their equality and mutual dependence. The Scriptures are very concerned to guard against the headship of the man being interpreted to justify a harsh, tyrannical, domineering rule of the man over the woman. So we read in I Cor. 11:11, 12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+11:11,12): "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." The man is out of the woman, depends upon the woman, is called to live all his life through the woman. In I Peter 3:7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Peter+3:7) the Apostle exhorts, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." Men and women are "fellow heirs" of God's grace and of eternal life.

The Scriptures teach that men and women are equally involved in ruin. Men and women stand equally in need of salvation. Jesus Christ is the Savior alike of women and men. Men and women alike possess (the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, and therefore equally share in the office of all-believer, the office of prophet, priest, and king. As Joel had prophesied, the Spirit was poured out not only upon Israel's sons, but also upon her daughters, Joel 2:28 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Joel+2:28), 29. The Biblical Prohibition Of Women in Office

Although all of this is true, the Bible forbids women to occupy the special offices in the church. Any fair and honest treatment of the Biblical material will yield no other conclusion, as the church up until recent times has maintained. What is that Biblical material?

First of all, the history of the Old Testament reveals very clearly already God's will that the leadership and offices in His church be entrusted to men. The leadership roles in the Old Testament were consistently assigned by God to men. Noah was called by God to build the ark and lead the church out of the old world and into the new world after the Flood. It was the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's twelve sons who led the church in the period after the Flood. It was the man Moses who was called by God to deliver Israel out of Egypt and lead them to the Promised Land. And it was Joshua who was appointed by God actually to bring the children of Israel into the land of Canaan.

In the Old Testament God assigned the office of the priesthood to Aaron and to the male members of his family, and not one woman was ever called to the priesthood. There were also elders throughout the Old Testament and right into the New Testament, but there is no mention ever made of a woman's being among the elders of any city in Old Testament Israel. Neither did a woman ever occupy the throne in Israel, except the godless usurper Athaliah, who was eventually killed by order of the God-fearing priest Jehoiada.

This male leadership of the church continued into the early New Testament. The Lord Jesus called 12 men, not 6 men and 6 women, to be His disciples. Peter, led by the Spirit, called the 120 believers in Acts 1:21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Acts+1:21) to choose one "of these men which have companied with us" to take the place of Judas Iscariot. The Spirit led the church, according to the first part of Acts 6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Acts+6), to appoint seven men of good report to be the first to occupy the office of deacon. The Jerusalem council, recorded in Acts 15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Acts+15), was an all-male church council, and the decision of the council was to appoint ''leading men'' to go with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to inform the church there of the council's decisions.

That the New Testament Scripture teaches that men shall occupy the special offices is plain from the passages which speak of the qualifications of officebearers, I Timothy 3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+3) and Titus 1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Titus+1). These passages speak very clearly of men, not women, as elders and deacons in the church. Among the qualifications listed is that the officebearers must be the husband of one wife, and these passages expressly do not say the wife of one husband. There simply was no question in the mind of the apostle or in the mind of the early church as to God's will that men should be the ministers, elders, and deacons.

Besides this, there are especially two passages of the New Testament that expressly forbid women to occupy the offices. I Cor. 14:34 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+14:34), 35 is the first of these passages: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Really, this passage is so utterly plain that its explanation ought to be obvious to anyone who is able to read the English language. The apostle calls the women to keep silence in the church. That doesn't mean that women may not talk inside a church building. That women are not allowed to speak means that they are not allowed to speak in the sense of preach or teach in God's church. The official ministering of the Word of God, which is, by the way, the work not simply of the minister but of all the officebearers, elders and deacons too, that is forbidden to women.

The second passage is I Timothy 2:11, 12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+2:11,12): "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." The apostle is speaking in this passage of the public worship services of the church. According to I Tim. 3:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+3:15). the first epistle to Timothy concerns proper behavior in the house of God, the church of God. Proper behavior for women in God's house, now, is that they NOT teach. For a woman to teach is improper behavior. Again--in the church. The women are not forbidden absolutely to teach. They may and they must, teach their children at home. They may stand the place of the parent in the Christian school and teach the covenant children. They must teach in the sense of speak and witness to all those with whom they come into contact day by day. They may teach Sunday School and teach one another in the Bible study societies of the church. In Titus 2:4, 5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Titus+2:4,5) Paul calls the older women to teach the younger women to be good wives and mothers. But they may not teach in the church. The woman is forbidden to occupy the pulpit and to preach.

More than this, Paul forbids them "to usurp authority over the man." The woman may not occupy the office of ruling elder. A woman who does this is a "usurper", that is, she acts on her own authority, not on the authority of God.

Rather, the woman is to learn in silence. She IS to learn; she is to grow in her knowledge and understanding of God's Word. But she is to do this in silence. That doesn't mean without talking. Literally, the Apostle says "in quietness", that is, tending to her own affairs and in her own God-given place, not intruding into affairs which God has assigned to the men of the church.

She is to do this "with all subjection." Subjection is obedience. "All" subjection is total obedience.

The ground or reason for the Apostle's teaching here is two-fold. First of all, as in I Cor. 11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+11), the Apostle appeals to creation: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve," vs. 13. God created Adam first, and then He made Eve. And not only was Adam made by God before the woman, but the woman was made out of and for the man. In I Cor. 11:8, 9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+11:8,9) the Apostle says, "For the man is not for the woman; but the woman for the man."

And secondly, Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was found in the transgression, vs. 14. Now that doesn't mean that Adam didn't sin and didn't fall. We know better. Adam, however, was not deceived in the way in which the woman was deceived. The woman was deceived first, and the woman was utterly and thoroughly deceived. She took the lead in the fall; she was the one who talked to the serpent, was deceived by the serpent's temptation, and she became the occasion for Adam to fall. Her usurping to herself authority that had not been given to her played a crucial role in the original fall of the race. As a consequence: she shall not teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but be in silence. An Examination Of Certain Arguments For Ordination Of Women

In spite of this clear teaching of Scripture which forbids women to occupy church office, the proponents of women in office put forward several arguments to overthrow this teaching of Scripture and to support their position that the church must open up the offices to women. We ought to examine the outstanding arguments of those who are seeking the ordination of women.

There is first of all, the argument that appeals to certain women in the Old Testament who occupied the office of prophet. The Old Testament does speak of three prophetesses: Miriam, Moses' sister; Deborah, who was both a prophet and a judge; and Hulda. Three things are worthy of note, however. First, these are the only recorded exceptions in the whole of the Old Testament to the obvious general rule that men were to occupy the offices. Secondly, in two of three cases, those of Deborah and Hulda, the spiritual condition of Israel was very low. They were raised up by God in times of great apostasy. Thee reason God raised them up and set them in the office of prophet was simply that there were no men in Israel fit to hold the office. And thirdly, it was by direct, special revelation that God called these women to office. They were prophets, that is, those to whom God gave direct, immediate revelation. We could accept women in office if this were still so today. But God does no longer give special revelations. The conclusion is obvious: There can be no women officebearers.

Secondly, the argument is put forward that the woman's general submission to the man and specifically her submission in the church which takes the form of her not serving in the offices, is an aspect of the curse and is based solely on the consequences of sin and the fall. Appeal is made to Gen. 3:16 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+3:16), "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. These were the words of curse that God pronounced against the woman on account of the fall. The next verses record God's curse over the man, that the ground would be cursed for his sake and that from now on he would have to work in the sweat of his face.

This argument runs something like this. As originally created by God, Adam and Eve stood in perfect equality. The fall into sin destroyed that equality, so that now the woman was placed in subjection to the man as part of God's judgment over her. Part of the work of Christ is to redeem the woman from this aspect of sin and the curse. In keeping with this work of Christ, the church ought to exert herself to elevate the position of the woman, restore her to her original equality, and make it possible for her to serve more completely and fully in the church. Just as we try to alleviate the effects of sin by anesthesia and pain-relievers for child-birth, and air-conditioned tractors for work, so we should attempt to alleviate the headship of man based solely on the fall and sin.

Notice, that this argument rests on two basic presuppositions. Number one, there was no headship of man over woman before the fall, in the perfect creation order. And number two, the rule of the man over the woman is part of the curse, something therefore inherently evil, a consequence of sin.

Two points must be made in response to this argument. First, we agree with the permissibility of attempting to relieve the effects of the fall into sin. Nothing wrong with that in itself. But we do that, not by removing the realities themselves that are mentioned in Genesis 3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Genesis+3): childbirth, work, and the submission of the woman to the man. Those realities themselves were not the curse pronounced over the man and woman by God. But we do that by alleviating that which corrupts these realities. In the case of the man's rule over the woman, the Apostles do that in the New Testament by exhorting husbands to love and honor, nourish and cherish their wives, and not be bitter against them.

Secondly, our response to this argument is that Scripture itself never calls women to be subject to men in marriage or in the church because of the effects of sin and the fall. Consistently, the New Testament Scriptures appeal to the creation order, the pre-fall arrangement of things as establishing the principle of the woman's submission. The fact is that it is God's creation order, as evidenced in Genesis 1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Genesis+1) and 2, that is the solid basis for the New Testament prohibition of women exercising authority in the offices of the church or in marriage and the home. That's I Cor. 11:8,9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+11:8,9); I Tim. 2:13 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+2:13); and Eph. 5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Eph+5).

A third argument for women in church office is the constant appeal to Gal. 3:28 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gal+3:28). In their use of this passage those advocating women in office remind us of a dog who has only one bark. The text reads: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Let it be said, that this text has absolutely nothing to do with the question of women in church office. This is not the subject of the passage or of the context. And an appeal to this passage is entirely beside the point. The subject of Gal. 3:28 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gal+3:28) is salvation, and the enjoyment of salvation through the gift of faith in Jesus Christ. The point of the Apostle is that salvation and faith are not confined to one limited sector of the human race. The New Testament church of Jesus Christ is a catholic, or universal church. Salvation is enjoyed not only by Jews, but also Greeks; not only by free men, but also slaves not only by white men, but also black, red, and yellow men; not only by men (males), but also women (females). As far as the gift of salvation is concerned, it is the same as with the need for salvation: there is no difference between men and women.

Another argument for women in office, one of the most commonly heard arguments, is that not to ordain women into the offices wastes the gifts of women. If the church does not accede to the ordination of women, the church is guilty of squandering its resources and wasting women's gifts.

This argument is ridiculous, and amounts only to an emotional appeal for women in office. At issue is not the question whether or not women have gifts, or whether they ought to use their gifts, or whether the church ought to be diligent to employ the gifts of the women. But the issue concerns WHERE those gifts are to be employed. The same Holy Spirit who bestows gifts upon the members of the church is also the author of Scripture, also the Scriptures that forbid women to occupy office. Are we to suppose that the Holy Spirit would contradict Himself? What About The Office Of Deacon?

Although some agree that women may not be ordained to the office of minister or elder, they are willing to concede that there may be women deacons in the church. They argue, first, that a deacon would not have to teach or rule. And secondly, they appeal in support of their contention to two passages of Scripture which, to their mind speak of women in the office of deacon: Romans 16:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Romans+16:1) and I Timothy 5:9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+5:9) and following.

The view that women could easily be ordained as deacons because they would not have to teach or rule is mistaken. For the deacons too teach and have authority over the members of the church. Sharing in the office of Christ, they too, along with ministers and elders share in Christ's authority. To occupy an office, in the nature OT the case, is to occupy a position of authority. That's why a requirement for the deacons, as well as for the elders in I Timothy 3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+3), is that they are "ruling their children and their own houses well." That requirement arises out of the fact that they must share in the rule of the church. And the fact of the matter is that in the course of their work the deacons must give some instruction and teaching officially and on behalf of the church of Jesus Christ. They do not simply write out checks and pay the bills.

The appeal to I Tim. 5:9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+5:9) ff. fails to prove the permissibility of women deacons. For, first the apostle deliberately does not refer to the women mentioned here as "deacons" or "deaconesses", but simply as "women". Second, that which makes it impossible to appeal to this passage in support of the ordination of women into the office of deacon is that the apostle requires that these women be widows and that they be widows of at least sixty years of age. Those who appeal to this passage want the offices opened up to ALL women.

Nor does the appeal to Rom. 16:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+16:1), the example of Phebe, prove the permissibility of women deacons. The passage reads in the King James Version as follows: I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea." The argument from this passage rests on the fact that the word translated "servant" may also be translated "deacon'' or "deaconess". This is the translation offered by both the Revised Standard Version and Phillips.

There is no question about it that "deaconess" is a proper translation of the word "servant" that is used here. The question, however is whether it is a proper translation in this particular passage. Or are the translators of the King James Version correct when they translate "servant"?

It should be noted that this word "servant" occurs in the New Testament in many different connections. It refers to servants, both male and female, in households; to servants of kings; to servants who are called to be obedient to their masters, to servants of God who occupy positions of government in the state. Besides, the word occurs in a host of passages where it MUST be translated "servant", and where it would be impossible and make sense to translate it by "deacon" or "deaconess". You can check this yourself by referring to a good concordance. The point is that one cannot conclude simply on the basis of the term itself, that Phebe was a deacon in the church. And in the light of the rest of the New Testament, she could not have been. She was a godly woman who served her fellow believers in the church at Center, and who was highly commended by the Apostle, but she was NOT an Eph. The Underlying Issue In The Debate Over Women In Church Office

That brings us to the final argument of those who are advocating women in church office. At the same time, with this argument the underlying issue in connection with the debate over women in office is brought clearly to the foreground.

What is that underlying issue? The Bible in plain language forbids women to teach or rule in the church. One simply cannot find support for women officebearers in Scripture. What do they do then who advocate women in office? They deny that these Scriptures apply in our time and to our culture. Surely, Paul in I Cor. 14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+14) and I Tim. 2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+2) was forbidding women to hold office. But the Apostle's teaching there is to be understood in the light of his Jewish training, and in the light of early New Testament culture. We must understand, we are told, that Scripture is time-bound and culturally conditioned. What the Apostle wrote applied to his times and his culture, but it doesn't apply anymore in our times and in our culture. The underlying issue, therefore, is Scripture and the church's confession of the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of Holy Scripture.

(Others see this as the issue, too. In a fine article in Christianity Today magazine (April 9, 1976) on the question of women in office, George W. Knight III states:
But I am distressed that some who have written on the .subject (women in office, R.C.) seem to be abandoning the inerrancy of Scripture and the authority of its teaching. Even some who claim to be evangelical Christians, to submit to the authority of God and his Word, seem willing to appeal to the passages in Scripture that support their position and to minimize other passages or declare them to be either wrong or only culturally relative and not normative, even when these passages themselves claim to be normative and not culturally relative.

This is exactly what Paul K. Jewett does in his book The Ordination Of Women (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 1980). Jewett is professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in California. In his book, Jewett is bold to assert that Paul's teaching is simply a reflection of an erroneous rabbinical view. He is bold to assert that Paul's understanding of Genesis I and 2 is wrong. He is bold to assert that Paul's teaching is simply conditioned by the culture in which he lived, and need not be followed anymore today.

In' a recent editorial in The Banner, editor Andrew Kuvvenhoven came down for basically this same position.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paul was prescribing a restricted role to women in the service of worship when he wrote I Cor. 14:34 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+14:34) and I Tim. 2:12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+2:12). However, the reasons for the restrictions were local, cultural, and therefore temporal. Paul could appeal to what was in his day a common moral judgment: a woman speaking in church looked "bad," "shameful" (I Cor. 14:35 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+14:35)). But when such an appeal can no longer be made, the special apostolic prescription is also removed. (The Banner, January 23, 1984).

Our response to this argument is simple: We deny it! It is false and wrong, and is a fatal concession of the doctrine of Holy Scripture. If this argument is allowed to stand in the church, the church has lost everything. The issue is not women in office. That's just an aside, a little aside. The issue is the infallibility and consequent authority of Holy Scripture. The position for women in office is only one more attack, among so many others today, against Holy Scripture itself. In the end, if the position that Scripture is culturally conditioned and time-bound is allowed to stand, it will be possible to set aside every doctrine and every commandment of the Scriptures.

This assertion that the Apostle's teaching is conditioned by the culture and times in which he lived stands directly overagainst the Apostle's own assertion that what he taught is the will of God, an assertion which the Apostle makes in the very passages in which he prohibits the women to occupy the offices of the church. In I Tim. 2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+2) the Apostle asserts that the prohibition of women in office is based on God's will expressed already in the creation order. Already in verse 7 of the chapter he had expressly said, concerning the instruction that he was about to give, "I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not." In I Cor. 14:34 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Cor+14:34) the Apostle states that his instruction has its foundation in the Law, in the will of God revealed already in the Old Testament Law: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." The Apostle insists on exactly the opposite of what men are saying today, that his teaching was grounded in the abiding will of God revealed in the Law.

I ask you, do you suppose for one minute that the Lord Jesus would allow himself to he pressured by the cultural situation of His day? Did He ever cave in to the prejudices and wrongs of the culture of His day? Are we really to suppose that the One Who forgave adulterers, ate with publicans and sinners, who was not afraid to point out the errors and hypocrisy of the religious leaders of His day, was actually afraid of offending the culture of His day? Was this the reason why He didn't appoint any women disciples? To ask these questions is to answer them.

One wonders! One really wonders about this cultural question! Who really are the products of their culture: Jesus? The Apostles? Or those today who are pushing for the ordination of women? The question arises whether or not, after all, it is not the modern advocates of women in office who have not caved in to a godless, antichristian culture out of which the whole modern women's movement has arisen? One wonders!

In any case, let us be clear, if the modern view wins the day, number one, the entire doctrine of Scripture's infallibility and authority goes out the window. And number two, the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture is overthrown and no ordinary Christian will be able to read and to understand the Bible anymore. He will have to trust the experts who know all the cultural, linguistic, philosophical, and historical considerations which influenced the writers of the Bible. As happened in the Romish Church prior to the Reformation, the Bible will be taken out of the hands of the ordinary people and once again confined to a hierarchy of "experts". God spare us this calamity! Our Calling To Stand Against This Movement

The church today and the individual believer must stand overagainst the movement to ordain women into church office. Whatever the cost, whatever sacrifice is required, whatever personal injury is suffered, we must stand! We must maintain the Scriptural position, without compromise. Martin Luther once said to those who were hedging in his day:
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God, except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle front besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

This stand of the church and of the believer must be a thorough-going and consistent stand. It must be a position that forbids the women to occupy the offices of minister, elder, and deacon. Besides that, the women are forbidden to teach catechism classes. The Reformed position is that catechism instruction is as much official teaching in the church as is the preaching of the Word on the Lord's Day. Nor ought women to be given the right to vote at the congregational meeting of the church. The congregational meeting is an official gathering of the church. For a woman to vote at a congregational meeting is for a woman to exercise some authority to enter into the government of the church. That is prohibited. There's an old proverb out of the Far Fast that the time to keep the camel out of your tent is when the camel sticks his nose into your tent. You let his nose in and you may be sure that his body will soon be following along. Reformed Churches do well to keep their nose of this camel out of their tent. The Positive Calling Of The Women

This stand of the church prohibiting women to occupy the offices must also be a stand that carefully lays before the women their positive calling in the church. That positive calling is summarized in I Tim. 2:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+2:15): "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith arid charity and holiness with sobriety." The hue and cry of the modern woman's movement has its source in the neglect and despising by the women of the positive calling which God gives them.

Scripture calls women to their proper task of childbearing. That is the unique and glorious calling that God has given to women in the church. Carrying out this calling they find their fulfillment. God gives women all kinds of opportunity to teach and to rule their children in the fear of His name. With a view to His calling God has blessed the women with many gifts, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, gifts which God has not given to the men. In the way of their carrying out of this calling, God's church is born into the world and gathered. In this way Christ came into the world, born of a woman the Bible says, and God didn't need and God didn't use a man.

How this calling of the women needs to be emphasized today! How women today refuse to carry out their God-given calling, by means of birth-control, or still worse, by means of the cold-blooded murder of abortion. What a terrible judgment of God rests upon them!

The Apostle goes so far as to say in I Tim. 2:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Tim+2:15), "she shall be saved in childbearing." Oh, to be sure, the women, just like the men, are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. But they are saved in the way of childbearing. They are not saved in the way of preaching, not in the way of ruling, and not in the way of administering the mercies of Christ in the church. They are saved in the way of childbearing.

What about those women who are past the time of childbearing, or to whom the Lord does not grant the privilege of hearing children? Have they no place in the church? They certainly do! Let them be known as was Dorcas for her good works and for her almsdeeds. Let them visit the fatherless, (the widows, the sick, and the aged in their affliction. Let them stand in the place of the parents in the Christian school. Let them assist the poor and be involved in all of the ways they can be involved in helping God's church. But let them not be ministers or elders or deacons. This is the teaching of the Word of God. What do you say? Say with me, "Choose you this day whom ye will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," Joshua 24:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Joshua+24:15).

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 11:56 AM

ray kikkert

06-14-2005, 12:20 PM

Ray:

I am not questioning this as of yet. My specific question is this.

The man spoke lies. The Woman Spoke truth. I have absolutely no problem speaking with her about the topics that we both love.

Pointing me to the 4000 articles avaliable on the subject NEVER addresses this situation.

The article does address the situation, emotion and tolerance though has mudded it on your part Joe. Emotion and feelings aside , the Word of the Lord says exactly what it says. Her blasphemy in upsurping authority within the church undermines the truth she tells you. Yea, even Balaam spoke the truth of the Word of the Lord as he was instructed. The fact that you somewhat question this fact as stated by the Lord in His Word, changes nothing in regards to His revealed will.

Mickey

06-14-2005, 12:22 PM

I would rather listen to Luba preach then many I have seen fill the pulpit! The rest all beggs the question that the present popular forms of ecclessia are Biblical.

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 12:25 PM

The article does address the situation, emotion and tolerance though has mudded it on your part Joe. Emotion and feelings aside , the Word of the Lord says exactly what it says. Her blasphemy in upsurping authority within the church undermines the truth she tells you. Yea, even Balaam spoke the truth of the Word of the Lord as he was instructed. The fact that you somewhat question this fact as stated by the Lord in His Word, changes nothing in regards to His revealed will.

I do not believe there is any emotionalism on my part. She xpouses the DOctrines of Grace beautifully. IT may be easy for you to dismiss because you have not encountered it. She is no longer a pastor, and in fact relinquished the role as she was here. SO I see nothing wrong with her and I speaking in regards to doctrines.

So are you implying that God would much rather prefer a male telling lies, than a female who speaks the truth? That I cannot buy at this time. I would also like to state that "authority" is not the Christ like servant model.

A male should not enter the ministry because of authority.

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 12:26 PM

I would rather listen to Luba preach then many I have seen fill the pulpit! The rest all beggs the question that the present popular forms of ecclessia are Biblical.

THis is my struggle Mike.

ray kikkert

06-14-2005, 12:52 PM

I do not believe there is any emotionalism on my part. She xpouses the DOctrines of Grace beautifully. IT may be easy for you to dismiss because you have not encountered it. She is no longer a pastor, and in fact relinquished the role as she was here. SO I see nothing wrong with her and I speaking in regards to doctrines.

There is alot to be said for clarity here Joe. It was said she was a minister. Does she intend to go back into the ministry? If she has seen the error in her upsurping authority in the church, God be praised. Neither do I see anything wrong in discussing with her the things above. I enjoy doing so with the women I converse with. The dear Luba can attest to that fact.
But neither do I see the wisdom in Doc's approach that we should have women fill the pulpit who are sovereign grace advocates , when God has clearly forbidden it. Then you must start cutting out pages of the Word of God to fit the mindset of an emotionally distraught creature.

So are you implying that God would much rather prefer a male telling lies, than a female who speaks the truth? That I cannot buy at this time. I would also like to state that "authority" is not the Christ like servant model.

A male should not enter the ministry because of authority.

I imply nothing of the sort. I boldly can say that both should be deposed from office and disciplined like wise. This "authority" babble is the farthest thing from what I assert Joe. This is also dealt with in the article I sent through. But you would have to read it first in order to know that.

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 01:00 PM

If she has seen the error in her upsurping authority in the church, God be praised. Neither do I see anything wrong in discussing with her the things above. I enjoy doing so with the women I converse with. The dear Luba can attest to that fact.
But neither do I see the wisdom in Doc's approach that we should have women fill the pulpit who are sovereign grace advocates , when God has clearly forbidden it. Then you must start cutting out pages of the Word of God to fit the mindset of an emotionally distraught creature.

Ray may I ask a few questions?

1) What is your definition of authority?

2) WHo in your church fills this role with your definition of authoirity.

3) Where in scripture can I find where it is forbidden for a woman to fill this role?

She is not longer pastoring a church. I wish she styaed on as preacher because the truths she taught were golden compared to her husband. Again you mention emotionally distraught creature, I have no idea what or who this refers to. I do not believe God has forbidden it as clear as many say. The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.

You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The man was a sow, therefore no silk could be produced just because he pees standing up!!!!!

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

There is no Law speakign about this, was Paul being sarcastic here pointing out to the men the error they have created?

Paul also states that women are to be subkect to their OWN husbands. Not others.

ray kikkert

06-14-2005, 01:13 PM

Ray may I ask a few questions?

1) What is your definition of authority?

2) WHo in your church fills this role with your definition of authoirity.

3) Where in scripture can I find where it is forbidden for a woman to fill this role?

She is not longer pastoring a church. I wish she styaed on as preacher because the truths she taught were golden compared to her husband. Again you mention emotionally distraught creature, I have no idea what or who this refers to. I do not believe God has forbidden it as clear as many say. The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.

You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The man was a sow, therefore no silk could be produced just because he pees standing up!!!!!

Well if it not clear enough already Joe, thou art the emotionally distraught creature. It is apparent we are unequally yoked here. No women according to Scripture should be upsurping authority by becoming an office bearer in the church. That is clearly laid out in the article I included. You are making a case for women in office. Scripture refutes it. You have to this point not exhibited any biblical exegetical warrant for your view. It is the wish of Joe we are presented with. Thus far it contradicts Scripture.

Mickey

06-14-2005, 01:21 PM

But neither do I see the wisdom in Doc's approach that we should have women fill the pulpit who are sovereign grace advocates , when God has clearly forbidden it. Then you must start cutting out pages of the Word of God to fit the mindset of an emotionally distraught creature.

All I said is I would rather hear Luba (who I believe has a solid grasp on the truth) preach rather than some of the heritics I see in the pulpits today. Nothing else implied.:)

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 01:21 PM

Well if it not clear enough already Joe, thou art the emotionally distraught creature. It is apparent we are unequally yoked here. No women according to Scripture should be upsurping authority by becoming an office bearer in the church. That is clearly laid out in the article I included. You are making a case for women in office. Scripture refutes it. You have to this point not exhibited any biblical exegetical warrant for your view. It is the wish of Joe we are presented with. Thus far it contradicts Scripture.

Ray , I must say as ruth gleaned the corners of the fields, I do glean something from your posts. That is the flowery language and KJV words. Nothing else, but I do enjoy the cliche's you speak.

Please could you answer my questions.

1) What is your definition of authority?

2) WHo in your church fills this role with your definition of authoirity.

3) Where in scripture can I find where it is forbidden for a woman to fill this role?

4) What authority is being usurped?

5) I will add a 5th. Where is this mysterious law pauls refers to? I do not believe one exists.

The other aspect that amazes me is Christ also says men should Love there wifes as He loved the Chruch. He died for the church Ray, would many men in leadership positions do that? :D

Ray, I am nuts, but believe me not emotionallly distraught over this issue. She is a God fearing woman, who is more enlightened than many men I know including myself.

ray kikkert

06-14-2005, 02:10 PM

Ray , I must say as ruth gleaned the corners of the fields, I do glean something from your posts. That is the flowery language and KJV words. Nothing else, but I do enjoy the cliche's you speak.

Please could you answer my questions.

1) What is your definition of authority?

1st Timothy 2:11-15 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1st Corinthians 14:34,35 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Titus 1:4To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

8But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1st Timothy 3: 1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

John Calvins commentary on 1st Timothy 2:12

"
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach. Not that he takes from them the charge of instructing their family, but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only. On this subject we have explained our views in the exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 1 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol43/htm/iii.iv.iv.htm#_fnf1) If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (Judges 4:4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Judges+4:4,)) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the commend of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, 2 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol43/htm/iii.iv.iv.htm#_fnf2) this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

He adds -- what is closely allied to the office of teaching -- and not to assume authority over the man; for the very reason, why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their condition. They are subject, and to teach implies the rank of power or authority. Yet it may be thought that there is no great force in this argument; because even prophets and teachers are subject to kings and to other magistrates. I reply, there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying, when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for gunaikokrati>a (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. Accordingly, he bids them be "quiet," that is, keep within their own rank. 3 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol43/htm/iii.iv.iv.htm#_fnf3)

John Gills commentary on 1st Timothy 2:12

"1 Timothy 2:12 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Timothy/2.html#12)

Ver. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, &c,] They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Titus/2.html#3). They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pr 1:8 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Proverbs/1.html#8). Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

but to be in silence; to sit and hear quietly and silently, and learn, and not teach, as in 1Ti 2:11 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Timothy/2.html#11).

2) WHo in your church fills this role with your definition of authoirity.

That would be the minister or pastor along with the elders and deacons that make up the consistory or council of the local church.

3) Where in scripture can I find where it is forbidden for a woman to fill this role?

4) What authority is being usurped?

These are soundly answered by Scripture in the above question 1.

5) I will add a 5th. Where is this mysterious law pauls refers to? I do not believe one exists.

This is in reference to the 1st Corinthians text.

John Gills comments ring true

"But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In Ge 3:16 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Genesis/3.html#16), "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.

The other aspect that amazes me is Christ also says men should Love there wifes as He loved the Chruch. He died for the church Ray, would many men in leadership positions do that? :D

Ray, I am nuts, but believe me not emotionallly distraught over this issue. She is a God fearing woman, who is more enlightened than many men I know including myself.

Joe , only by the grace of God can a man defend his family if put in that position. Puny man is not strong enough of his own to do so. He must utterly rely upon God's grace in such a case. I cannot speak for other man, but this is my hope.

She may be enlightened, but let her not ever ascend the pulpit in a local church and render that truth hypocritical. Her obedience is to herself , not the Lord who has admonished her if she ascends the pulpit.

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 03:08 PM

Ray. The scriptures you posted are true, but still do not give a definition of Authority.

WHat is the biblical authority that should be followed?

And again, there is no Law that Paul mentions in the Cor text. Gen 3 is a stretch, but it is not a law. I searched the whole OT and cannot find one at all.

Let us look at some NT examples please

Anna, an 84-year-old Temple attendant, is another example of a prophetess in the New Testament, and is one of the first people to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah. The description occurs in Luke 2:

“36There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38Coming up to them [Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus] at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.”

Phoebe is mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:1-2. The NIV translates it as follows:

“1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. 2I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.” (Roamns 16:1-2, NIV)

The word that the NIV (and KJV) translates as “servant” is actually from the Greek word diakonos, which, according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions means:

“1b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use”

We can thus assume that Phoebe held the office of deacon in her church (the NIV has a note which gives an alternative translation of diakonos as “deaconess”).

Priscilla and her husband Aquila (tentmakers by trade) are mentioned 6 times in the New Testament. Interestingly, Priscilla is mentioned before her husband four of those six times (Acts 18:18,26, Rom 16:3, 2 Tim 4:19) – an unusual practice in New Testament times.

Priscilla and her husband Aquila (tentmakers by trade) are mentioned 6 times in the New Testament. Interestingly, Priscilla is mentioned before her husband four of those six times (Acts 18:18,26, Rom 16:3, 2 Tim 4:19) – an unusual practice in New Testament times.

Romans 16:7:

“7Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”

Why is this seemingly innocent passage controversial? Because one way of reading it is to view that Paul was saying that Andronicus and Junias were outstanding apostles – and Junias is the feminine form of a Greek name. If this is the correct interpretation, then we have a female apostle.

The Revised Standard Version muddies the waters by stating “they are men of note among the apostles”. However, Junias (Iounias)is clearly of the feminine form, as Thayer’s Greek Definitions states:

“1) a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoner
Part of Speech: noun proper feminine”'

These are just a few examples. I believe Paul was setting guidelines on what and how to teach and expound Gods word, more then setting a universal rule for eternity.

In Timothy, I personally think the word "men" and "women" are mistranslated here. Here's why I think so.

First, all the men would be over all the women, and in other scriptures that we read we have occasions where women are in authority over men. Even in the Old Testament where you have a highly patriarchal society, you have women judging men. Deborah was a judge, for example. If you are identifying God's priorities, there may be a distinction between that and the church, but at least we see some pattern in the Hebrew Bible where this happened.

Sometimes you hear the explanation that there wasn't a man, so God had to raise up a woman. What a bunch of malarkey! If God does the raising up and His pattern is men over women, then He will raise up a man. That is just a weak response.

When I did my own word study on the words man and woman, I found out that the word man is aner and the word woman is gune . In the case of the word aner , which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated "husband." In other words, "husband" is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn't absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated "husband" and "wife." So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.

So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that's why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.

What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: "Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don't allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet."

Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The "quiet" there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word "teach" here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn't saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it's that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritually speaking. That's really what it amounts to.

verses 1-8 is in one grouping, verses 9-15 (http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=1+Timothy+2:9-15)is another. Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship.

Finally, no other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church. If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission. However, the New Testament consistently teaches that a wife should be under the authority of her husband. That fits the larger context of the New Testament much better. There may be some problems with my understanding here, I am willing to acknowledge that. But I think that it is less problematic than the other view. Frankly, there are not too many other places in the scripture except for 1 Cor 7where you have a similar kind of situation and the traditional translation there also breaks the pattern. So, I think this is as good a way as interpreting the passage as the other.

If one is to be consistent with the popular (by popular, I mean what both the average churchgoer and the majority of expositors have historically assumed) interpretation of Paul's words to Timothy, that is precisely the case. Those who argue that Paul was prohibiting, forever and always, the teaching of men by women must stop allowing women to teach men anywhere, even the mission field. They must stop allowing materials written by women to be used in the church by men. And women should never be permitted the opportunity to speak in church, whether one calls it "sharing" or "teaching." There is no difference. Women must be kept silent. Even letting them sing in choirs, solo, or even in the congregation, is not acceptable, since singing involves sounds coming out of their mouths, and songs can teach people things.
Or, if this seems unreasonable (as I hope it would!), perhaps a re-appraisal of what Paul meant would be a good idea. Just because a given meaning seems "obvious" doesn't mean that it is. Remember that our ancestors thought it was "obvious" that the world was flat and the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, and stars revolving around it.
Paul's context (in his letter to Timothy) needs to be taken into account. We recognize that we are not physically with Jesus now, and so his command to Peter to catch a fish and pay the temple tax with the money he takes from the poor creature's mouth is obviously localized (Matthew 17:24-27). But, we do translate the specific command to the general principle that we should live by faith and that we should do what God tells us to do.
Thus, perhaps, when Paul is prohibiting teaching by women (2 Timothy 2:12-15), we should take it more as a general prohibition against teaching by those unqualified, than as a general rule regarding the place of women, since the women of Paul's day were generally uneducated and thus ill equipped to take on a public teaching role.
That is, when looking at the text, the cultural and historical context must be examined. There has been a tremendous shift in the opportunities and education of women; women of today, in many respects, are not in the same position as those of Paul's day in the Greek community. (Just as Jesus is no longer around, and so that simple change in circumstance between then and now has an impact on how we fail to universalize his command to Peter to go fishing in order to pay the temple tax).
What of the use of the woman being duped by the serpent that Paul uses to illustrate his point? Just that, it illustrates the point: that the women of Paul's day, like Adam's wife, were naive and easily lead astray. Would this be the case with all women? And how does a universal prohibition on teaching by all women reconcile with the examples of women teaching in the Bible (Priscilla [Acts 18:26]) or even serving as prophets (Huldah [2 Kings 22:14-20], the four daughters of Philip [Acts 21:8-9]). Remember the fundamental principle: an interpretation that is correct must not create contradiction. If it creates a contradiction, you know it's wrong. Only those interpretations that do not lead to a contradiction can be correct (this does not mean, of course, that just a lack of contradiction means the interpretation is correct; it might still be wrong).
If there is not a universal prohibition on women teaching men in the Bible, then there is nothing inherently unscriptural about a woman being the senior pastor of the church, or taking on any other leadership position. In the church, as in society, a woman would be able to participate and function in any role she chose. Competence alone should be the qualifying factor for any task.

Also notice two other instructive passages:
Jesus called them together and said "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-45)
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death -
even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5-8) Interesting picture considering husband and wife should relate to each other as Christ does to the Church. Leadership in the Christian setting, the concept of the husband being the head of the wife, must be understood in the light of what Jesus said about the nature of leadership. The one who leads is servant of all, and what is entailed by that is illustrated well by the incident where Jesus washed the disciple's feet.

Priscilla Was Involved In Teaching Apollos
Acts 18:25-26

This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately

I am not at all promoting an Elizabeth Stanton or Betty Friedan agenda regarding the heresy of feminization in Scripture. But perhaps men have elevated this Pauline teaching beyond what was intended and claim it to be Gods command using it as a veil to dominate women in the Church.

We must remember never to bind more than what was intended, not liberate more that intended also.

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 03:41 PM

I also forgot to mention that if it is "allowable" for women to teach in their house, and they started assemblies in their houses, then why could they not teach there?

As long as they did nto usurp authoprity and taught correct doctrine, and obeyed their OWN husband!!!!!!

ray kikkert

06-14-2005, 04:12 PM

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 04:31 PM

I can and have looked at the examples you have posited. It amounts to babble to fit the bill. I am surprised you do not see the definition of authority as specified in 1 Timothy 2:12, especially in light of the comments made by faithful saints before who defined the text.

Faithful exegetical interpretation of Scripture dictates we take the clear reference to the subject at hand and cross reference it with other clear references, not run away from them. Not only that, we look to those trusted reformers who have commented on the texts as well. Something that seems to be above you.

You on the other hand Joe try to make the texts used by yourself to fit your women in leadership scheme. I cannot help it if you remain blind to the truth staring you in the face regarding what the definition of authority as is mentioned in the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 text. You make muddy that which is clear.

Then you have the audacity to claim that the law regarded to in Genesis 3:16 to be a stretch. Really? Please enlighten me as to what scholastic babbler would advocate such a position as the one you advocate? I will not take "your" word for it.

This should not even be up for discussion within the reformed faith. Sadly it is. Thus your appeals to liberal thinking stand refuted. Please put off the froward thinking as it is a mere chasing after the wind. If you continue to advocate this bankrupt position consider to what purpose to which you defend such heterodoxy. For the glory of God or for that of a creature?

Paul would never intend Genesis 3 to be considered a "law".

That still does not address what is meant by biblical authority Ray. I have provided texts that explain that some woman were in leadership positions, and you refuse to address them. If you consider the words "Rule over thee" as a basis for this it is found wanting

ray kikkert

06-14-2005, 04:54 PM

Paul would never intend Genesis 3 to be considered a "law".

That still does not address what is meant by biblical authority Ray. I have provided texts that explain that some woman were in leadership positions, and you refuse to address them. If you consider the words "Rule over thee" as a basis for this it is found wanting

Like I said before Joe, I do not happen to care what you think "Paul" intended. The truth of the matter is that this is the Word of God, in the vessel of Paul. The same Word of the Lord that stated in Genesis3:16 that the women's desire will be toward her husband and that he would rule over her. That was her punishment. That Word is steadfast and without fail. This is the bar of God's justice. God's Word is law. I am surprised you do not see this. God has determined the fish to be in the water. If the fish is out of the water it dies. Thats the Word of God, His judgement , His law.

The texts that you posited cannot be supported that these women were in the offices of the early church. Those offices are for the men alone. Always has been. Why should God's purpose change Joe in the year of our Lord 2005?

Your answers are that of a babbler and not edifying. I will put off discussing this with you. This really is not up for discussion from the get go.

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 09:17 PM

Like I said before Joe, I do not happen to care what you think "Paul" intended. The truth of the matter is that this is the Word of God, in the vessel of Paul. The same Word of the Lord that stated in Genesis3:16 that the women's desire will be toward her husband and that he would rule over her. That was her punishment. That Word is steadfast and without fail. This is the bar of God's justice. God's Word is law. I am surprised you do not see this. God has determined the fish to be in the water. If the fish is out of the water it dies. Thats the Word of God, His judgement , His law.

The texts that you posited cannot be supported that these women were in the offices of the early church. Those offices are for the men alone. Always has been. Why should God's purpose change Joe in the year of our Lord 2005?

Your answers are that of a babbler and not edifying. I will put off discussing this with you. This really is not up for discussion from the get go.

What is a babbler?

You seem to recycle that term frequently Ray.

Look, coming from the PRC i can now saee why you are so zealous for your own cause. The fact is, I disagree this is new to 2005. And Gen 3:16 is not the Law paul refered to.

First of all Adam was the only one cursed. But this is digressing. I have provided texts shopwing that women may have been in leadership positions, but because you will not address them, that is fine with me.

Wrestle with Priscilla and Junius Ray. Keep your woman completely silent, dont let them sing either.

I for one will listen if an enlightened woman expounds the word.

Is the believing spouse still under the rule to her unbelieving spouse? NO!!!!

In His Name

Joe

Tobias Crisp

06-14-2005, 10:21 PM

Yoder

06-14-2005, 10:50 PM

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 11:01 PM

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 11:08 PM

Joe....

Women pastors are a fairly new thing that has come onto the scene. I think the fact that there were no women pastors or elders in the "church" till it started gaining acceptance in the 1800's should show you that it is not a part of orthodox christianity.

There is nothing in the qualifications that are written in the new testiment that suggest that women can be a pastor/elder.

The examples that you point to that really do not prove nor disprove your point and that is when we must go to scriptures that are clearer on the subject

Yes God has used women in the past to accomplish his work and he will continue to do so. But your arguement is lacking and amounts to reinterpreting the bible and making arguements about the Greek that you cannot possibly know for yourself. (Unless you are a learned Greek scholar then I will appologize.)

If you do but into the switching of man/women for husband/wife then could a woman be a pastor in a church where her husband was a lay person?

You have the weight of scripture plus the weight of history against you I am afraid.

Dave

David. If you read my original question, I still believe it is fair and honset. The thread digressed into woman pastors and that was and is not my intention.

I was specifically addressing the issue of having an ordained married couple pastor the Church I attend. And the wife was and is a Sovereign Grace believer and teacher, the husband is a socialist liberation theologist.

Being faced with this issue specifically, I admit it caused problems for me and I have had to relook the Scriptures to find if the male dominance theory is 100% unilateral and eternal or if Paul was speakign specifically to the cituation he was facing himself.

After revisiting this issue, I have found the word "authority" to be misleading, and the fact that certain scriptures speak of woman starting churches, teaching the apostles and others, and Janious possibly being mentioned as an apostle.

I did not know the greek myself, but the "magic" of the internet comes in handy Dave.

I have no problem being taught by a female, if the men have no interest in the doctrines of Grace.

wildboar

06-15-2005, 12:33 AM

Lion:

WHat is the biblical authority that should be followed?
Authority, at least in the 1 Timothy passage has to do with the exercise of leadership in the church. Please see George W. Knight III's commentary on this text for further study.

And again, there is no Law that Paul mentions in the Cor text. Gen 3 is a stretch, but it is not a law. I searched the whole OT and cannot find one at all.

The term law is used in a variety of ways in the NT. Sometimes it refers to the decalogue, sometimes to the entire Old Testament, sometimes to a specific law, and sometimes to the Pentateuch. I believe it is the Pentateuch which is in view here and if so Gen. 3:16 would seem to be the clearest example although the entire teaching of headship included in the proceedings of the Pentateuch would also be in view. We find the same thing in some instances where the NT speaks of event and says that it ocurred so that a prophecy would be fulfilled such as "He will be called a Nazarene." We find nothing within the OT which says in such a literal way that Jesus will be called a Nazarene but the principle is there.

Let us look at some NT examples please

Anna, an 84-year-old Temple attendant, is another example of a prophetess in the New Testament, and is one of the first people to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah. The description occurs in Luke 2:

“36There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38Coming up to them [Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus] at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.”

Phoebe is mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:1-2. The NIV translates it as follows:

“1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. 2I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.” (Roamns 16:1-2, NIV)

The word that the NIV (and KJV) translates as “servant” is actually from the Greek word diakonos, which, according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions means:

“1b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use”

We can thus assume that Phoebe held the office of deacon in her church (the NIV has a note which gives an alternative translation of diakonos as “deaconess”).

There is nothing to suggest in the above example that Anna exercised any type of official church office. She was certainly filled with the Holy Spirit and used as a prophet by God given the gifts belonging to the apostolic age before the close of the cannon. As for the connection of the term diakonos with Phoebe it should first of all be noted that diakonos is used rather rarely for the office of deacon. It is much more often used for couriers and assistants of various sorts. Having various books from various positions on this topic I believe the best to be Brian Schwertley's book which can be read here: http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html He does a very fair job of examining both the Biblical and historical evidence and concludes that Phoebe was part of the order of widows described in 1 Tim. 5:9-10 and that appears to be the way the church interpreted the passage as well. These were women over the age of 60 who had only been married once. They were not ordained but worked as assistants to the deacons and helped out especially in cases which would have perhaps been uncomfortable for a man in helping other women. The order of servant widows died out when violations began to occur (the age limit was lowered, women stepped outside of their roles, etc.) It was revived again at the time of the Reformation and practiced in Geneva until similar abuses began to occur. I think it would be a very good thing to bring back the order of servant-widows that is lacking in many churches.

Romans 16:7:

“7Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”

Why is this seemingly innocent passage controversial? Because one way of reading it is to view that Paul was saying that Andronicus and Junias were outstanding apostles – and Junias is the feminine form of a Greek name. If this is the correct interpretation, then we have a female apostle.

The Revised Standard Version muddies the waters by stating “they are men of note among the apostles”. However, Junias (Iounias)is clearly of the feminine form, as Thayer’s Greek Definitions states:

“1) a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoner
Part of Speech: noun proper feminine”'

These are just a few examples. I believe Paul was setting guidelines on what and how to teach and expound Gods word, more then setting a universal rule for eternity.

It is absurd to say that Junias is clearly feminine. Most modern scholars favor the idea of Junias being feminine (Junia) but the answer lies in how the word is accented and there were no accents in the original manuscripts. If Junias is feminine she may very well be the wife of Andronicus. The question must then be asked as to how the term "apostle" is being used. In its strictest sense it applies only to the 12. In a more general sense it refers to anyone being sent. Then it must be determined whether or not (as is grammatically possible in the Greek) "outstanding in the estimation of the Apostles" or "who, as apostles, are outstanding." At the least it seems a very shaky passage to base anything on.

Even in the Old Testament where you have a highly patriarchal society, you have women judging men. Deborah was a judge, for example. If you are identifying God's priorities, there may be a distinction between that and the church, but at least we see some pattern in the Hebrew Bible where this happened.

Deborah was an exception and she is given to show how far the leadership quality of the men had fallen. The men were not doing their job.

When I did my own word study on the words man and woman, I found out that the word man is aner and the word woman is gune . In the case of the word aner , which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated "husband." In other words, "husband" is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn't absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated "husband" and "wife." So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.

So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that's why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.

What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: "Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don't allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet."

Verse 8 begins speaking of men in general and verse 9 speaks of women in general, there is nothing that occurs between or within verses 9-11 that suggests there is a shift from women to wives.

Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The "quiet" there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word "teach" here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn't saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it's that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband.

Regardless of how far you take the silence and so forth this is a rather odd thing to say. The present tense implies a continous action. It means "Let her learn in continual silence...." so it doesn't make sense to say that because of this the woman may at times teach the man.

verses 1-8 is in one grouping, verses 9-15 is another. Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship.

There is nothing to suggest that there is no connection here and if the woman is supposed to be submissive to her husband at least if she is married it would seem impossible for her to function over him as a pastor.

Finally, no other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church.

I'm assuming Ephesians is being alluded to. Idios came to be used in koine Greek more generically to denote their husbands for instance rather than in the classical where it had the idea of their own husbands.

If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission.

And a denial of the perspicuity of Scripture!!! And a denial that those who lived during the lifetime of Paul were able to understand what Paul meant!!!

If one is to be consistent with the popular (by popular, I mean what both the average churchgoer and the majority of expositors have historically assumed) interpretation of Paul's words to Timothy, that is precisely the case. Those who argue that Paul was prohibiting, forever and always, the teaching of men by women must stop allowing women to teach men anywhere, even the mission field. They must stop allowing materials written by women to be used in the church by men. And women should never be permitted the opportunity to speak in church, whether one calls it "sharing" or "teaching." There is no difference. Women must be kept silent. Even letting them sing in choirs, solo, or even in the congregation, is not acceptable, since singing involves sounds coming out of their mouths, and songs can teach people things.

This is the "you too" logical fallacy. However, I think we should do away with all solos by anyone.

Remember that our ancestors thought it was "obvious" that the world was flat and the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, and stars revolving around it.

This is different because it is a move from perspicuity of special revelation to the not necessarily perspicuity of general revelation. There is a vast difference between the two.

Paul's context (in his letter to Timothy) needs to be taken into account. We recognize that we are not physically with Jesus now, and so his command to Peter to catch a fish and pay the temple tax with the money he takes from the poor creature's mouth is obviously localized (Matthew 17:24-27). But, we do translate the specific command to the general principle that we should live by faith and that we should do what God tells us to do.
Thus, perhaps, when Paul is prohibiting teaching by women (2 Timothy 2:12-15), we should take it more as a general prohibition against teaching by those unqualified, than as a general rule regarding the place of women, since the women of Paul's day were generally uneducated and thus ill equipped to take on a public teaching role.

Jesus does not command everyone to pay the temple tax by grabbing a fish or set forth any type of general principle. Paul never says that women may not teach because they are uneducated. He traces the reason back to the creation ordinance. If Paul had desired he very well could have said, you may not teach because you are all bunch of morons but he didn't.

That is, when looking at the text, the cultural and historical context must be examined. There has been a tremendous shift in the opportunities and education of women; women of today, in many respects, are not in the same position as those of Paul's day in the Greek community. (Just as Jesus is no longer around, and so that simple change in circumstance between then and now has an impact on how we fail to universalize his command to Peter to go fishing in order to pay the temple tax).

Yes, and soon with science men will be able to have babies. So we can all be its now. Paul would probably wish that people who thought such things would castrate themselves like the circumcision party.

If there is not a universal prohibition on women teaching men in the Bible,
But there is, whoever wrote this just doesn't like it.

Competence alone should be the qualifying factor for any task.

Wrong!!! Scripture alone should be the qualifying factor. This a much broader problem. There is something far more important than what seminary a person went to, what kind of degree they received, if they are people persons, if they tell nifty jokes and can relate to postmoderns. The issue is whether or not they agree to the qualifications given in Scripture for the office.

Who is primarily to blame for women in church office? Men!!! They allowed it. They encouraged it. They sat on their effiminate buttoxes because they refuse to exercise their biblical headship and would rather step aside and destroy their churches. Then time goes on and the men stop coming to church. There was an article in the Saturday Grand Rapids Press about the upcoming CRC synod in which the agenda is to further the feminization of the church by allowing churches in those classis who do not allow women to be pastors to call women as pastors and to allow women to vote on the floor of synod. One of the current female CRC ministers was interviewed about why she decided to become a pastor and she said:
"The life of the church and the family, the birth to life to death thing is just something I wanted to be a part of."

You can't be a part of a church or family unless you are a pastor? You can't be born, or live, or die? Oh, well.

Anyhow, neither the man nor the woman mentioned should be serving as a pastor or elder.

lionovjudah

06-15-2005, 08:10 AM

Very good post Chuck. Thank you for the insights. Again, I am not here promoting a feminist agenda. Female pastors. All female leadership.

That said, I still see absolutley nothing wrong with an enlightened female, teaching the truths that Paul expounded and not going beyond them.

As my case suggests, the male taught lies, she spoke truth.

Thanx again Chuck

Joe

Yoder

06-15-2005, 08:16 AM

So no matter what is said biblically... you are not going to believe it but will rely on your experience? Interesting.

Dave

lionovjudah

06-15-2005, 08:58 AM

So no matter what is said biblically... you are not going to believe it but will rely on your experience? Interesting.

Dave

David, with all due respect, this is not the case brother. I am speaking of a real struggle here, that I am not able to settle at this time.

And I belive what is "supposedly said" biblically may not be entirely correct. Am I also to dismiss the possibility that God raised up this woman to teach me certain truths? Who am I to determine that when certain females in scripture are said to have taught?

My goodness the broad brush that is used sometimes!!!!!!

GraceAmbassador

06-15-2005, 09:32 AM

So no matter what is said biblically... you are not going to believe it but will rely on your experience? Interesting.

Dave

Brother Dave, I am somewhat familiar with Joe's struggle. Let me propose to you an absurd and then you answer to yourself if Joe is disobeying the Word and living by experience:

Let's say you woke up from a coma you fell on when you were a child. Now, at the age of understanding, you wake up and the only two people around you is the married couple who took care of you. The man, claims to be a Christian, the wife does as well. You struggle to recognize them and remember things and the ONLY thing that you remember are the verses in a book your parents used to read, called Bible, where it says that "women are not supposed to teach and that they should learn in silence". The couple, concerned about your spiritual welfare, begin to teach you the Bible. The man says that Jesus is A GOD and procedes to show you in scripture WHATEVER misintepretation he has to prove his point. The woman INTERRUPTS HIM and says; "NO Jesus IS GOD!" Here is the correct rendering of the scriptures my husband is incorrectly quoting she insists.
In your heart os hearts you know that the WIFE is correct. The Spirit witness to you that WHAT the wife SAYS is correct and the husband is WRONG. You have in the back of your mind that WOMEN ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TEACH and thet they should remain in silence.

Who would you beieve? Especially in the light of the fact that the Spirit witness to you that what the WOMAN SAYS is the Godly interpretation?

Would you just accept a heresy because it came from a man? Would you reject truth just because it came from a woman? Can God use a jack-ass? (Not comparing women with jack-asses).

It is an absurdity and a rethorical point, however, in a very similar way, this is what Joe is struggling with. Can we condemn him for giving heed to the woman's teaching rather than to the teaching of her husband?

No need to answer. This is not intented to dispense doctrine. Just for reflection...

Trusting God,

Milt

lionovjudah

06-15-2005, 09:48 AM

ray kikkert

06-15-2005, 10:09 AM

Gentlemen,

Let's step back and take a deep breath before things get too heated and turn personal. Ray, I for one wish you would quit using terms like babble and babbler in reference to what Joe is saying. I know this is a hot topic and can be controversial. I think we need to keep our head and our cool when discussing these issues.

Sorry Tobias, with respect to the false doctrine of women being allowed into the offices of the church and advocating such...... it is babble.

You suggest this to be a hot topic, controversial. It is either error or truth. I then will ask of you Tobias, where do you stand with respect to the issue at hand?

I also refute the idea that this should be up for discussion. Women are forbidden by the Word of the Lord to hold office within the church of Christ.
The infallibility and inerrancy of the Word of God is at stake.

Tobias Crisp

06-15-2005, 10:19 AM

lionovjudah

06-15-2005, 10:41 AM

Sorry Tobias, with respect to the false doctrine of women being allowed into the offices of the church and advocating such...... it is babble.

You suggest this to be a hot topic, controversial. It is either error or truth. I then will ask of you Tobias, where do you stand with respect to the issue at hand?

I also refute the idea that this should be up for discussion. Women are forbidden by the Word of the Lord to hold office within the church of Christ.
The infallibility and inerrancy of the Word of God is at stake.

Sugar Ray:

Perhaps we can look at your commentary.

God decreed it, end of discussion.

Here we go again with the false dominoe analogy. WHat next? Am I to be condemned for denying the incarnation? The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection? You may be settled, but i am not. You may have figured out God and lowered Him to your level, but I will not and cannot.

Ray with all due respect for the sake of Christ, you do have a prevalient tone of animosity in repetition of eloquent clich's and phrases in your posts. You are quick to point out others babble, but then put yourself in the position of Job in your own struggles. It is up for discussion because I am asking it to be Ray. If you cannot show charity and dialogue, then I humbly request you refrain from any more posts on the subject. It matters little to me when one speaks with such anger passes judgement upon me, because who are you to condemn anyone? Perhaps we should just discuss election, reprobation 24/7. there are 66 boooks in the Holy Writ that have many profitable topics, but yet, all funnel to His decree correct and there is no need to discuss anything else?

In fact it is settled. I state emphatically that an enlightened woman did, and may teach men as long as they remain within the truth revealed by Paul. If God finds fault with my decision, HE ALONE will chastise me, but believe me, I do enough bad for Him to chastise me. Much worse than listen to the teachings of this woman, this vessel of God, who found in charity the need to explain the Doctrines of Grace to me early on in my journey and I thank God for her.

Ray I am not surprised at your reaction though. You enjoy the "High Grace pep rallies" in on line forums. But if one humbly and earnestly comes in and expresses ideas contrary to what has indoctrinated you, you lash out as if you have been given the position of the watchman on the wall.

If Bob, or Brandon made a statement like mine, you would be much more forgiving, but because I am not part of the cookie cutter mold, I am called a babbler. (no offense B & B, just making a point)

I could see MAry approaching you, the gardner, in tears asking where they took the Lord. Your response would have been. "Hey woman, you babbler, I know your behind the veil of tears, He decreed you to babble, you babbler. why are you denying His ressurection? You vile wretch of a woman you are. Stop the idle babbling of veiled tears. Now go and get peter so he can tell others because you are a female babbler"

Go and reread your posts like I have recently, and repent of this anger and hatred and demeaning remarks for anything and anyone that differers in the slightest tittle and jot from your fallible understanding. I have and it is cleansing thank God alone.

I say this in Love Ray

Joe

Robert R. Higby

06-16-2005, 01:37 AM

We have had many discussions on this subject in the past. Without going into a lot of detail, I will briefly summarize the conclusions that I posted:

1. Paul forbids a certain type of woman-speak in the corporate worship assembly. Some believe that this refers to ALL speaking of women in ANY capacity in all ages (including prayer, scripture reading, sharing of insight into scripture, prophecy of the 'little p' sort, etc.). I do not share that view as it contradicts other NT scriptures.

2. Paul is addressing a specific crisis that arose in the assemblies where a movement of women tried to usurp the authority and teaching of appointed male elders. They did this by causing division and speaking in a disorderly fashion. The women's movement of that era was promoting the old wives fables referred to in the same letter of Paul; probably involving a teaching of free-will over and against sovereign grace.

3. Women are forbidden to speak or teach in a manner that would usurp the authority of the apostolic gospel and the stewardship of it entrusted to male elders recognized by the assemblies.

4. Women are not permitted ordination as elders in the assembly.

That about summarizes it.

Yoder

06-16-2005, 07:19 AM

Brother Dave, I am somewhat familiar with Joe's struggle. Let me propose to you an absurd and then you answer to yourself if Joe is disobeying the Word and living by experience:

Let's say you woke up from a coma you fell on when you were a child. Now, at the age of understanding, you wake up and the only two people around you is the married couple who took care of you. The man, claims to be a Christian, the wife does as well. You struggle to recognize them and remember things and the ONLY thing that you remember are the verses in a book your parents used to read, called Bible, where it says that "women are not supposed to teach and that they should learn in silence". The couple, concerned about your spiritual welfare, begin to teach you the Bible. The man says that Jesus is A GOD and procedes to show you in scripture WHATEVER misintepretation he has to prove his point. The woman INTERRUPTS HIM and says; "NO Jesus IS GOD!" Here is the correct rendering of the scriptures my husband is incorrectly quoting she insists.
In your heart os hearts you know that the WIFE is correct. The Spirit witness to you that WHAT the wife SAYS is correct and the husband is WRONG. You have in the back of your mind that WOMEN ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TEACH and thet they should remain in silence.

Who would you beieve? Especially in the light of the fact that the Spirit witness to you that what the WOMAN SAYS is the Godly interpretation?

Would you just accept a heresy because it came from a man? Would you reject truth just because it came from a woman? Can God use a jack-ass? (Not comparing women with jack-asses).

It is an absurdity and a rethorical point, however, in a very similar way, this is what Joe is struggling with. Can we condemn him for giving heed to the woman's teaching rather than to the teaching of her husband?

No need to answer. This is not intented to dispense doctrine. Just for reflection...

Trusting God,

Milt

What does this have to do with the discussion?

In all intents and purposes I would be wary of both of them. I do not accept heresy from either sex. I think there is nothing wrong with a woman witnessing to people, showing them in scriptures what the truth is. There is nothing wrong with that and there are New Testiment scriptures that attest to that fact.

What I am saying is that women that are in leadership positions (as an elder or pastor) in the church are going against the word of God and are living a sinful lifestyle of one that goes against the plain teachings of the bible. Plain and simple. I don't care what your experience is. I don't care what crazy stories you try to come up to make your point. I don't care if she is the only pastor on staff that teaches high grace. She is still living in sin and if she is not following the Lord in this then there will be other errors in her life that will manifest themselves eventually.

Dave

lionovjudah

06-16-2005, 08:04 AM

What does this have to do with the discussion?

In all intents and purposes I would be wary of both of them. I do not accept heresy from either sex. I think there is nothing wrong with a woman witnessing to people, showing them in scriptures what the truth is. There is nothing wrong with that and there are New Testiment scriptures that attest to that fact.

What I am saying is that women that are in leadership positions (as an elder or pastor) in the church are going against the word of God and are living a sinful lifestyle of one that goes against the plain teachings of the bible. Plain and simple. I don't care what your experience is. I don't care what crazy stories you try to come up to make your point. I don't care if she is the only pastor on staff that teaches high grace. She is still living in sin and if she is not following the Lord in this then there will be other errors in her life that will manifest themselves eventually.

Dave

David, David, David: WHat amazes me is how I picture your writing your response. WIth venom dripping from your lips. WHy is that? WHy do we swallow a gallon of "holy testostone" when this subject is discussed? My original intent was not to digress to female ordination. It was only to show that I believe God has and can use a female who teaching within the revelation of Pauls teachings. And I have experienced it first hand.

Joe

Brandan Kraft

06-16-2005, 08:29 AM

I'm closing this thread and will echo what Bob has to say on this...

1. Paul forbids a certain type (emphasis brandan's) of woman-speak in the corporate worship assembly. Some believe that this refers to ALL speaking of women in ANY capacity in all ages (including prayer, scripture reading, sharing of insight into scripture, prophecy of the 'little p' sort, etc.). I do not share that view as it contradicts other NT scriptures.

2. Paul is addressing a specific crisis that arose in the assemblies where a movement of women tried to usurp the authority and teaching of appointed male elders. They did this by causing division and speaking in a disorderly fashion. The women's movement of that era was promoting the old wives fables referred to in the same letter of Paul; probably involving a teaching of free-will over and against sovereign grace.

3. Women are forbidden to speak or teach in a manner that would usurp the authority of the apostolic gospel and the stewardship of it entrusted to male elders recognized by the assemblies.

4. Women are not permitted ordination as elders in the assembly.

One thing I will add - and that is I consider women to valuable PRIESTS in the Body of Christ. I will not deny their priesthood and prevent them from voicing their opinion on Gospel topics. I believe they have authority to proclaim the Word and defend and explain it - even speaking up respectfully when the leadership fails to teach properly. What they don't have is the authority to serve as an elder in a church.

Further, I do not believe there is such a thing as an "office" that someone fills, but men are recognized as leaders. A woman may be ordained by some stupid institution, but that in no way makes her an elder in a church.

Anyway, I don't think this topic is worthy of any further discussion. Again, I'll repeat that women are not to be elders or serve in positions of authority within the ekklesia. They are however to be treated as fellow and equal priests in the body of Christ.

Closing thread....