1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

a woman teaching

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Helen, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen, I tried to explain my reasons why I would be uncomfortable with it.

    I think your understanding authentein is misguided, BTW. That word is a hapax legomennon, I believe. Much creativity has been used to explain why it doesn't mean "authority," but rather "authority with corporal punishment" (which make no sense in the context ... what church pastor practices corporal punishment on his members???), "teaching under the authority of a man" ("under the authority" is not found in the text) or some such other meaning. Attempts to make authentein anything but authority are found all over, and they are all found wanting.

    Secondly, the text says "teach or have authority." So it is, in reality, prohibiting two things: 1) teaching men; 2) having authority over men. It is not merely prohibiting one thing.

    I am a lot more comfortable with people who say "Paul was limited by his first century context" than with those who say "the words really mean something else."

    I think confusing "material" with "presentation" is not helpful. Your response about Eddys' teaching is true ... It is wrong no matter who presents it. But the fact that material is right does not lead us to conclude that anyone can present it. Again, the Bible gives two reasons, based on Gen 1-3 (which you should know as well as any), that have not changed.

    I think we should take a quick look at 1 Tim 2.

    1. The context is the public gathering of the church.
    2. The prohibition is for women to teach or have authority. There are no exceptions for the kind of authority or team teaching, or any such thing.
    3. The reasons given are creation reasons, not contextual reasons (e.g. women's education status, first century view of women, women susceptible to false teaching, women not teaching under the pastor or husband, etc.)

    One last comment: The fact that a woman can teach men effectively is not the point. The fact that a woman might stand beside her husband to clarify her husband's technical language is not the point. The point is about the text and its teaching. I see no reason to abandon the text.
     
  2. 2BHizown

    2BHizown New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great post, Bro Larry!

    When I think of how often we choose to alter the word 'just a tiny bit' to fit into our circumstances I then remember instances like, Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, Ananais and Saphira and know that God's holiness is not to be tampered with or altered, not one miniscule bit!

    As my daily read through is now in Leviticus, the book of holiness, I even more clearly see that God has zero tolerance for altering His statutes and commands to our own preferences! :godisgood:
     
  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    It's not a matter of preferences, it is a matter of what is meant. Personally, I would rather stay at home with my retarded son, my garden, and my animals when Barry goes to present. But he needs me and he asks me to go with him and help.

    Now, aside from that, I have two questions for Pastor Larry.

    1. Why is any woman, then allowed on Baptist Board outside of specific women's sections? I have said FAR more here in the years I have been here regarding Bible, exegesis, etc., than I ever have in my husband's presentations. Therefore I must be teaching, in clear violation of what you are telling me Scripture means.

    2. You stated that teaching means authority. I would love to know what authority I have here. Who here is accountable to me?

    Here is a third question:
    Are you and the other men wrong to read anything I say, let alone respond to me?
     
  4. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not Pastor Larry, but I'll take a stab at it... The Baptist Board is not church.
     
  5. 2BHizown

    2BHizown New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this not God's best? You even state that it would be your preference!

    When men and women appear together in the pulpit do they not have the appearance of being a united team in presenting to the congregation?

    When Susie and Johnny are co-pastors is this scriptually acceptable?

    Is there a difference here? For real, or by preference?

    Actually anonymity on the board is preferable as then ideas and issues can be discussed scripturally and without all the gender influence and frivolity and consideration entering in. Some however, prefer to be known!

    Just my 2c and IMOP.
    In remembering all the years my dad was pastor I actually dont remember once when my mother entered the pulpit. She did however, participate mightily within the ladies groups.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    To quote myself from the above post, 1. The context is the public gathering of the church.

    Here, as in teh Baptist Board? None. But in a public setting, particularly in a church, a teacher does have authority. That is why he/she is teaching. They are believed to have knowledge on teh subject that they think others should be informed about. In the context of teaching Scripture, a teacher has the authority vested in him to tell people what God says, and what they should believe and do.

    Silly perhaps, but not wrong. ... I am kidding. I appreciate what you ahve said on here about creationism and origins. But again, remember that this is not a public gathering of the church, the body of Christ.

    So all your questions were, in reality, based on a faulty presupposition that the prescriptions of 1 Tim 2 and women teaching apply outside the body.
     
    #46 Pastor Larry, Oct 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2006
  7. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    OK, folks. Barry and I were NOT in a pulpit in a church. We were in a conference room that was open to the public in a hotel in Lake Tahoe.

    Second, when my preference is different from my husband's request, I follow him. He is my head.

    Third, it was a conference primarily to do with how science fit the Bible. My husband and I both did the research and both presented.

    Fourth, I am not anonymous here. Folks here know I am Helen Setterfield and my husband is Barry Setterfield. Our website is www.setterfield.org

    Fifth, anonymity is not an excuse for disobedience.

    Sixth, neither of us had any authority in that gathering. Anyone could have walked in or out at any time. Anyone could raise their hand and interrupt us, ask us a question, disagree with us, agree with us, add to what we were saying. All of that happened. We could tell people what we had found in our research and how we believed, personally, that related to Genesis 1-11 but AT NO TIME did we tell them what to believe, and in fact, encouraged them to dig for the truth themselves.

    Our entire purpose is to help our brothers and sisters in the Lord understand that there is no war between what God says in the Bible and the actual data from creation itself. They do not have to choose between faith and 'science.' We were there to build up the body of Christ with our skills, as Paul teaches us to do.

    Whenever Barry preaches in a church, there is NO WAY I am up there with him! That is an entirely different affair.

    Pastor Larry, by its very nature, the Baptist Board IS a public -- very public -- gathering of the church. This section is limited to Baptists and that means believers. The church is not a building. It is the body of believers.

    You might notice as well, that even in context, 1 Timothy does not limit itself to a public gathering of the church. If it does, then the immediate previous verses regarding a woman dressing modestly also refers to ONLY IN CHURCH! And I have a really hard time with that one!

    1 Timothy 2:12 indicates a woman is not to take on a man's authority in teaching or any other way. She is not to do that on her own recognizance. However, if we let Bible explain Bible, we see that GOD gave Deborah authority over a whole LOT of men! Priscilla and Aquila worked together to correct doctrine. Priscilla was under her husband's authority as I was under mine, and we were not even talking about doctrine!

    So:

    1. I was obeying my husband's request
    2. We were not in a formal church setting but in one open to the public
    3. We were talking about how science supports Genesis 1-11
    4. We had no authority over anyone there and did not tell them what to believe, especially in terms of Bible
    5. Baptist Board is a public gathering of the church and, believe it or not, the only one a few people here have, for one reason or another.
     
  8. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was it a church gathering, not asking if it was at a chhurch, but was it the CHURCH gathered for the lecture, or just any old body, did a church ask you to come there? Why was it not in their building, but a public building?
    I don't think it matters where a church meets, in the church building or not, they are still the church.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your OP said, This past weekend, we were the only speakers at a retreat for a church at Lake Tahoe. So was it a church or was it not? The church is not the building. It is the people (as you later say). So to say you weren't in a church isn't really true, if you were there at the invitation of hte church for a church gathering.

    No it's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of ecclesiology.

    Yes it does. Paul is giving instructions about "how one ought to conduct himself in the church" (1 Tim 3:14).

    Not at all. The fact that something is true in church does not mean that it is not true elsewhere. So Paul's commands for modesty are for modesty in church, which I could lay out the case for it here if I had time, but I am hungry and my wife is waiting, so perhaps later. But the principles of modesty in the church worship have application elsewhere, as well as explicit teaching elsewhere.

    The text does not say this last statement, does it? You have added to the text.

    Not in the church.

    First, creationism is doctrine. Second, Priscilla, if she spoke, did so when her and her husband were discipling one man. It was not a gathering of the church.

    To say you had no authority is curious. If you had no authority, then why were you invited to speak? That invitation, in and of itself, indicates that the church viewed you and Barry as an authority on the matter at hand. Furthermore, the very nature of teaching is telling someone what is true, and therefore, what they must believe to be in line with Scripture.

    Honestly Helen, you are very good on creationism. But on some of these issues, it appears that you will go to great lengths to get around what the text says. For my end, I see no reason for it. I think we just go with the text.
     
  10. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    You mean just like here, Donna?
     
  11. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Honestly Helen, you are very good on creationism.

    Thank you, but please be careful, Pastor Larry. You just informed me that that was doctrine. Best not to let me teach you anything.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this kind of response underlines the main issue which is a misunderstanding of context. This is not a church, and reading a book from someone is not a church. The prohibition is not against learning from women. It is against women teaching or having authority in a church.
     
  13. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I mean a church invites you their conference, and you stand up in front of the CHURCH and teach. Thats what I mean.
     
  14. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Folks. This is Barry Setterfield. I have sent my wife (Helen) shopping while I make a few points here relating to 1 Timothy 2:12. In the NKJV this verse reads "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;..." In what follows, we have 7 reasons why it was scripturally legitimate for my wife to be presenting with me at the Tahoe Conference.

    POINT 1: Notice that Paul says "I do not permit". This may be his own personal stand, not necessarily God's. To see this, note that in a similar way he wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:6 & 7 "But I speak this of permission, not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself." Why do we not take Paul at his word here and demand that all Christian men remain single? When he is speaking and uses the word I, but means that it is a command of the Lord, he says so. We note this in 1 Corinthians 7:10 where Paul writes "And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord." So in summary of this point it can be stated that this is Paul's own personal preference. However, there are some men who will always dispute that point because their interpretation of the text vitally depends on it, so we move on to Point 2.

    POINT 2: Paul says "And I do not permit a woman to teach..." Note the context of this which can be found in 1 Timothy 2:8 where Paul states that "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands...and I also want women to dress modestly ... which is proper for women professing godliness." In other words it is EVERYWHERE not just in the church. So these are general commandments. No distinction is made about this in verse 12. So when Paul states that "I do not permit a woman to teach", that is NOT just in the Church, but EVERYWHERE. Nothing specific about a church gathering is mentioned here, so this understanding of the text is assured. Well, as we all know, this is problematical because we immediately recognize that this would preclude a woman from teaching at school or at home or anywhere else, because this suggestion of Paul (NOT a command from the Lord) is to apply "EVERYWHERE". So in order to avoid that complication, many claim that it can only be in the church that this restriction applies. But that is not what Paul says here. So what is the answer to this conundrum? It comes in Point 3.

    POINT 3: The word "Teach" is the key to this awkward situation. It is the Greek word "Didasko" from which we get the word "Didactic" which is to teach in a pedagogic manner. In other words it is a domineering form of teaching requiring submission, which was the way that many Greeks and Romans taught. Paul says that this form of teaching is unacceptable in a Christian woman. It is therefore important to realize that when we "teach" today it usually means "an exchange of information". This is a far cry from what the Greeks and Romans meant by the word. In other words, there is nothing to prevent a Christian woman instructing her children in the home or exchanging information in the classrom at school, in a gracious, Christlike manner, because that is NOT "Didasko". On this basis, my wife was NOT acting in a manner described by "Didasko". This then allows women to present information in a way that is NOT "Didasko" at school, or home in fact EVERYWHERE, since this is the context. This would also include the Church. But that understanding is anathema to some men, so they move on to their defence, the phrase which is the topic of point 4.

    POINT 4: Paul says that he will "not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man". Note to begin that the word "over" is NOT in the original text. It literally reads "I do not permit a woman ...to have authority a man." The word "Over" is an interpretation offered by the King James translators without justification, and, in part, has led to the current situation in the English speaking world. They must bear the responsibility for that. What the text is actually saying is that "I do not permit a woman to have the authority of a man" or alternatively "I do not permit a woman to have a man's authority". This is the plain straightforward reading of the Greek text. On the matter in question, my wife did not exercise a man's authority. She was acting in obediance to my directions, and so was acting UNDER my authority. She was NOT exercising a man's authority on her own behalf. In that sense she was acting within the Scriptural bounds.
    Furthermore, I have the power before God as her husband to give her the permission to speak on my behalf because she is then acting under orders, my orders as a husband. Since wives are told to be submissive to their husbands, she was indeed submissive and did exactly what I told her to. But this is not good enough for some men, so we move on to point 5.

    POINT 5: The point that needs be made here is the use of the word "authority". It is the Greek word "Authenteo". This is a compound word which literally means "to act for oneself" or figuratively has the meaning to "dominate". My wife neither acted for herself nor dominated. She acted at my behest, and I called the shots or dominated. Therefore my wife was not exercising "Authenteo" over me or the audience. She was not at fault Scripturally on either meaning of the word.

    POINT 6: A literal reading of the text might therefore be "I, Paul, do not permit a woman to present in a domineering way which requires submission to her, or to act for herself or dominate a man." On this basis my wife is clear of all charges against her. She did nothing wrong or contrary to the straightforward reading of Scripture. There remains one final comment.

    POINT 7: However, what also disturbs me is the form of legalism that has penetrated some churches, or at least the individuals who run those churches. This legalism requires them to insist that there is no other valid interpretation of passages such as this one. This legalism denies God's character. If there is another legitimate interpretation open, which allows the graciousness of Christ to shine forth, it should be used in place of a legalistic one. It can be seen from POINT 6 that there is a very valid
    reading of Scripture which allows this graciousness to be expressed. There have been countless times when Helen and I have presented at churches, Bible Schools and Bible Colleges without restriction. Often people have come up to us afterwards and said that we had just given them a practical demonstration of how a Godly husband and wife should be one in all they do. The legalists would deny God the privilage of using us for His glory in that way. In light of this, it might be appropriate for them to reconsider their position, and think carefully over the literal reading given in POINT 6.

    Barry Setterfield.
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 Tim 3:16 means that Paul’s words are God’s words. So this is God’s command because “All Scripture is God-breathed.”

    Incorrect. 1 Tim 3:14 makes clear that Paul is addressing how people ought to conduct themselves in the church. The fact that a teaching might be applicable elsewhere, does not change the context of this one. So your understanding of the text is not only “not assured,” it is specifically contradicted by the Scriptures themselves.

    Simply incorrect. Where did you get this from? You list no source by which it can be checked. I browsed quickly through TDNT and NIDNTT and see nothing of the sort right off. Brown (NIDNTT) says “The aim of all teaching is to communicate knowledge and skill with a view to developing the pupil’s abilities, but not to force his will in a particular direction” (3:760). That seems directly in opposition to your assertion about “requiring submission,” as does the rest of the discussion on this word.

    It doesn’t literally read that way. The genitive case in Greek requires us to supply a word in English that is understood perfectly well in Greek. The text says nothing about a woman exercising authority under a man. That is your addition to the text. Never does a man have permission to call on a woman to disobey God in any context.

    Again, simply incorrect. The word can mean to have authority over or to domineer. You have assumed the definition that fits your preconceived notion. The word does not require that, nor does it really make sense. Not even men are to “dominate.” They are to lead gently, and teach clearly. George Knight (New International Greek Testament Commentary) says, “ Contrary to the suggestion of the KJV’s “to usurp authority” and BAGD’s alternative, “domineer” (so also NEB), the use of the words no inherent negative sense of grasping or usurping authority or of exercising it in a harsh or authoritative way, but simply means “to have or exercise authority” (BAGD; LSJM; “to have full power or authority over”; cf. Preisigke, Worterbuch I, 235f., giving three nuances for four different papyri, all in the sphere of the above definition; cf. finally Lampe, Lexicon, whose four main meanings are in the same orbit; so NASB, RSV, TEV, NIV: “to have authority”).

    He continues, “That a woman may not teach in the church, or teach a man, is underlined by the addition of [to remain quiet (he uses the Greek here, but most won’t understand it so I translated)]. The adversative particle alla indicates that this clause is contrasted with what precedes (not to teach or have authority but to be in silence). Some have suggested that Paul is only ruling out teaching or exercise of authority apart from a man’s oversight [which seems to be your position, Barry], or just a certain type of authoritative teaching. The insistence here on silence seems to rule out all these solutions. The clause as a whole describes the status of a woman not in relation to every aspect of the gathered assembly (i.e., praying, prophesying, singing, etc.; cf. again 1 Cor 11:5) but specifically in respect to that with which it is contrasted, i.e., teaching (and the exercise of authority), just as the first occurrence of [in silence] applied to the learning/teaching situation (v. 11).”

    So you have failed to account for “remaining in silence” (v. 12), and learning in silence (v. 11).

    That is most decidedly not a literal reading of the text. That is your interpretation of the text, to support your position. The text literally reads “To teach, a woman, I do not allow nor to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (You can get out your Greek New Testament and check it out.) Smoothed out for English construction, Paul literally says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to remain in silence.” The words you have added are your words, not God’s.

    BTW, concerning “remaining silence,” do you still want to argue that this is not just about the church? As much as some men with talkative wives might find such a prescription helpful, it most certainly is not intended for outside the church.

    Here, your wife asked for comments, so they were offered. I have tried to stay clear of making direct personal accusations while at the same time not compromising on the clear teaching of Scripture.

    This is the last resort … Pull out the legalism card? Are we legalists because we insist on the outdated notion that men and women should not live together? That homosexuals should not marry? Why is it that taking the words of God and putting them into practice is legalism? Why pull this out?

    The fact that I and others take the words of Scripture on this matter very seriously does not make us legalists. It is unfortunate that you stooped to that.

    In short, Barry (I think there is a rule BTW against posting under someone else’s name), the text of Scripture is clear and your seven points are attempts to avoid the text. You have not participated in a straightforward reading of the text. You have mangled it, attempting to use Greek; you have ignored the context, both near and larger context of 1 Tim as a whole; you have ignored the impact of the doctrine of inspiration; you didn’t address remaining silent; you did not even attempt to address Paul’s reasons (creation and fall). If all you have said is true, then why did Paul speak so clearly in opposition to your position, and why did he use creation and fall as his proof?

    Are your familiar with Grudem and Piper’s book on this topic? You should familiarize yourself with it. The arguments you make are typical arguments made by evangelical feminism (which doesn’t necessarily make them wrong). As I said earlier, I have a lot more respect for people who just say, “Paul was trapped in first century culture,” than for those who try to change what the text says.

    I think what you have given us is a classic attempt to justify women in teaching and authority roles in the church. Every church with women pastors would applaud your exegesis because it is exactly what they believe. And I think that we have shown sufficient holes in it to undermine any legitimacy it might pretend to have.
     
  16. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Larry, this is Helen. Barry has been allowed to post his VERY infrequent posts under my name in the past. If you folks prefer, he can dictate and I can type!

    Your response is absurd in some areas. I don't want to say alot but to accuse him of using the 'excuses' given for women to be pastors or church leaders is nonsense. He did nothing of the sort.

    Nor did he ask me to disobey Scripture. He would never do that.

    Those who have followed this thread will see what the different sides are and that is probably enough. You have greatly overstepped the meaning of what Barry wrote and I'm sure that those who are reading with anywhere near an open mind on this issue will see that.

    Barry's approach will NOT allow a woman to be a pastor of a church, for she would then be taking an authoritarian role and a man's authority at that. That is clearly what Paul is speaking against. Inasmuch as Priscilla was not disobeying Scripture, neither was I.

    Thank you.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don’t have a preference about that. I really don’t care. I just commented on what I thought the rule was. As far as I am concerned, Barry can post under whatever name he wants to. (Just don't go in the Holy of Holies, aka the women's private forum.) I honestly thought he had a registration.

    Feel free to address these absurdities and I will do my best to respond. I supported what I said with various references. Feel free to do the lexical and exegetical work and respond. I am willing to be sharpened on this.


    If you have read the arguments for women to be pastors, they are exactly what he gave. Seriously, read those who believe women can be pastors. They will argue that it’s Paul’s words, not God’s. They will argue that authentein is domineering authority. They will argue that it's okay as long as a man is the head pastor.

    If Scripture says what it appears to say without the creativity, then we probably would have to come to a different conclusion on that. I have tried to avoid any direct accusation against you. I don’t think you or he intend to disobey in this area. I do think you have used some very creative exegesis and explanation to try to avoid it. And it won’t work. But I am trying very hard not to personalize it.

    I have?? What did he mean then? If I missed something, please clarify.


    Again, if you read those who support women pastors, you will see this very approach. It is almost identical to what they say. How do I know? Because I have read them. I have talked to them. I have interacted with them at length on my blog and on others. What Barry said is what they say.


    Second, Paul is not just talking about an authoritarian role. He includes teaching, and uses the common word for teaching. (I would still be interested in knowing what lexical resources Barry used to get his ideas.) Paul is speaking about 1) teaching men and 2) exercising authority over men. How do we know that? Because that is what he said.

    As I read the story of Priscilla and Aquila, and compare that to your story here, there are very few similarities.

    One of my amazements in interacting with you and Barry over this and some other topics is that you hold the Word in such high regard with respect to creation, going against the bulk of modern “science” and culture. But then in other areas you do not appear to hold the Word in high regard. And that is amazing to me. This was a prime example of you doing to 1 Tim 2 exactly what Hugh Ross and others have done to Genesis 1-11. You have taken the plain reading of the text and redefined words and failed to deal with certain aspects of it, and failed to deal with the context of it.

    I simply encourage you to rethink this, starting from the beginning, and putting aside whatever past ministry you have had. Pretend like that is not an issue. Pretend like modern culture is not an issue. Just deal with the text.

    However, I did enjoy the recent telescope pictures, at least the ones I took time to download. The old dialup does not work real well with those large pictures. But they were incredible.
     
  18. TaterTot

    TaterTot Guest

    Recently I have read about Huldah the prophetess in 2 Kings 22 and (2 Chronincles as well). She was sought out by a king of all people, and that king (Josiah) was one in pursuit of God. God used her to confirm His words to Josiah. It concerned the Book of the Law. She was married as well, and it was SHE who did the talking.

    We ought not try to make the Bible say what we want it to say.
     
  19. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barry,

    As I read back over the posts, I keep asking myself: "What am I missing here?"

    Over and over again, I ask: "What is it that is troubling me?"

    What is it that you are trying to gain from this discussion?

    Permission for a woman to teach? No that is not it.

    Permission for a man to teach? Certainly not.

    I think what is troubling me is the constantly changing semantic range of the words being used in this exchange. Church is used, but later it means a hotel conference room. Teaching is used, but then it means teaching with corporal punishment (I really did not remember that from my Greek NT, but I might have learned something).

    It is difficult to exchange ideas and interact on a subject when the topic seems to be mutating.

    OK - for what it is worth - From what has been posted, I do not think that you were in error about your actions. But, your justification continues to amaze me. Honestly, I really do not know where you are going with your argument. In all sincerity, where are you going? Do not tell me or post to the board, but answer to your self - what 'it' is that you are trying to gain from this discussion?

    For example: if you are trying to gain theological approval - I am not your pastor; if you are just trying to vent and release - you seem to still be hurting too much from the event to get the release IMHO; if you are trying to win an argument - you won't change the theology that I had arrived at before this all began; or if 'what'?

    I really do not know what is going on in this thread. There is a constant head banging about something that most believers (including yourself) have already settled in their minds and in their hearts.

    I continue to pray for you and your family. But, it is difficult to offer 'advice' when there does not seem to be an identifiable problem.

    God bless

    Wayne
     
  20. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Frankly, I think this is a topic we can find the appropriate verse somewhere to support what we want to believe.........either side, and in any version.

    Cheers,

    Jim

    PS, Not pointing a finger at anyone. I just don't get hung up on it, except I fight for women's rights in this modern society.
     
Loading...