What is the criteria

I don't hold a liberal view, but I can give you an honest answer.

They decide a particular scripture does not apply today when it doesn't conform what they believe is "fair" in today's society. They trust in Scripture only when it suits their purposes and when it doesn't, they twist it so that it will.

 

In I Timothy 2:12 the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. A more accurate translation in English is: “I am not presently allowing" or “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men”

We know that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5).

We know that women functioned in the Church as deaconesses,. i.e. Phoebe.
We know that Paul called Junia a disciple.
Thus we know, that Paul did not prohibit women to speak in all places and churches.

1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat, a threat from the gnostics. It is in the same class as Paul's writing about women wearing a head covering. This also was aimed at a specific problem in Corinth.

 

I disagree. Do the women in your church wear head coverings? Do you cut the hair at your temple? Do you blend fabrics? Do you avoid boilng a goat in it's mother's milk? Do you keep the 7th day Sabbath? Do you keep your oxe from grazing while treading? Do you only eat animals that chew the cud with split hooves? Do you still perform animal sacrifices?

Clearly cultural and not having anything to do with what's "fair", no?

 

In 1 Tim 2:12, Paul uses the creation of man and woman as the basis for his instruction. That is why in this case it cannot be cultural.

 

That is absolutely, 100%, false. I don't know a one evangelical who does this.

The issue is not with the authority of Scripture. The Word stands and applies to us today. This issue, though, is that we can't make it say something to us that it didn't originally say. Paul was speaking to a people who lived in an extremely restrictive culture in respect to gender. That does not necessitate that the culture remain that way, nor does it apply universally. The passage is still inspired and useful for us today, but it is not a blanket, overarching statement.

Should we own slaves, as is mentioned other places? There was a time when people used this very same argument about owning slaves, but I don't know any who would hold that we should follow the same logic with slaves today. What about women praying with their heads uncovered?

The Bible doesn't change. The meaning doesn't change. But the audience does. Women, of course, wouldn't be allowed leadership at that time.

Additionally, there are many times when God, in His sovereignty, allows injustices to go on for the sake of the Kingdom. Polygamy anyone?

Also, we see a trajectory throughout the Bible of women gaining more and more freedom in culture. The same cannot be said of homosexuality or something like that.

For further reading, I would suggest the writings of N.T. Wright, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (can't recall the author right now), Beyond Gender Roles by Gilbert Bilazikian (sp?), and Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. Also, Gordon Fee is very helpful

 

Everyone limits the I Tim 2 passage, it seems. Does it apply only in church, or in other contexts such as government, education, business, etc.? Does Paul say they are only to be silent/submissive to "the man" only in a church context, or is making a universal pronouncement based on a "creation order"?

How do you limit it's meaning?
Do you limit it's application just to church meetings?
Why?