women in leadership

You mean like John Calvin does in Institutes IV.10.29-30?:

"the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like. . . .Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee which is made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a human tradition, which any one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect? I say, that it is human, and that at the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle; and it is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general, rather than expounded. From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought of the whole class—viz. that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts of divine worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded, in his sacred oracles, so that in them he alone is the only Master to be heard. But as in external discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every particular that we ought to observe (he foresaw that this depended on the nature of the times, and that one form would not suit all ages), in them we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the Church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.
Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided."

 

That is exactly what I am talking about! Pure human reasoning placed above God's Word thus invalidating what God's Word explicitly states.

 

Dr. Walter, do you believe the Bible gives pastors a role of authority or of servanthood?

If authority, then those verses that limit women from that authority will certainly seem to you to apply to the issue. (Although few groups actually expect women to keep totally silent, although a literal reading demands it.)

If servanthood, then verses limiting women from authority won't be relevent.

May I humbly suggest it is possible to disagree with your (or my) interpretation of the Bible without being guilty of the things you posted?

It is just possible we will get to heaven and find out just how many things we misunderstood.

 

- Both. It is position of leadership and yet we are to lead by example and humility without deminishing the authority of the office and proclamation and teaching of the Word.

Context, context, context is the key to interpreting any word, phrase, verse, paragraph, chapter, book, etc.

In context, he is addressing PUBLIC speaking in the assembly if you will just look at verses 26-30.

Of course you may suggest it. But your suggestion would be wrong.

There is nothing to misunderstand about these precepts as they are laid out crystal clear.

Everyone knows that in any institution, work place, business, the home, church or wherever there are more than one person involved in doing anything there must be "order" or there is chaos.

It does not take too much common sense to realize that in any gathering of people where they are trying to conduct anything decently and in order there must be leadership roles distinctly defined or anarchy and chaos is the result. This is true in the home as much as at your job. This is true in the congregation as much as at the lions club.

For some reason, when it comes to the home or church it is assumed that everyone is equal in position of authority when in fact the submission of children in the home rests upon the very same authority of scriptures that the submission of the wife to the husband is founded.

For some reason some believe the wife is to be in submission to the male leadership in the home but as soon as she enter's the congregation the positions can be reversed. What about the children, when they enter into the congregation can their roles be reversed with the parents?

Here is a text for you to consider:

Isa. 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

 

No not "therefore". That is an assumption with no foundation.

 

Deal with the evidence I presented to Nodak instead of presenting empty rhetoric.

 

So which of your examples (1-4) is the vaunted Calvin guilty of?

 

Originally Posted by Jerome
You mean like John Calvin does in Institutes IV.10.29-30?:

Calvin intentionally mixes together into one group things not specifically addressed with things specifically addressed in order to bring them under the rule of interpretation dealing with non-specific things. For example, he lists such things as "...hours set apart for...fixed places....bending of the knee..) with things explictly stated by scriptures (singing of hyms..prohibition of Paul against women") as things that must be dealt with by a common principle designed for non explicit things. That is erroneous thinking.

Things not explicitly mentioned in scriptures can be properly dealt with according to explicitly mentioned general principles ("let all things be done decently and in order...etc.). But explicit precepts and examples cannot be altered or interpreted by general principles as though no explicit teaching was given in scripture.

Neither can he abritrarily assume certain things are confined to a specific culture when explicit scriptures give pre-cultural or acultural bases for commanding them.

 

Kentucky Baptist Convention ministry partner Georgetown College celebrated "Baptist Women in Ministry Day" on Tuesday. Highlights included a chapel message by Pam Durso and a reactivation of the state chapter of BWIM.

Baptist Women in Ministry reforms in Kentucky

 

It is sad that many simply trash the scritpures (deny inspiration, deny context, deny plain meaning of terms) in order to conform the scriptures either to their own desires and culture instead of conforming themselves and their culture to the scriptures.

God has a greater design behind the pre-culturally determined positions of the man and woman in the home and in the church and it is to explicitly show the POSITION of authority of Christ over the church and the church's submission to Christ (Eph. 5:23-30). By denying, reversing and/or rebelling against those positions established in creation they are by typology making Christ submissive to the Church and placing the church over Christ. That is the creative typologoical design for the respective positions of the man and woman established at creation (Eph. 5:30).

 

For those with ears to hear, may I explain to you God's purpose for establishing the man in the position of authority over the wife and children at creation. It not only served the purpose for establishing order in the home and protection for wife and children. It served a greater typological purpose and design.

1. You will note the language in Ephesians 5:22-25 where the relative positions of the husband and wife are compared "even as" Christ and the church.

2. In Ephesians 5:30-31 Paul quotes the langauge taken from Genesis account of the institution of marriage and applies it directly to Christ and the chruch (Eph. 5:32).

3. The man represents Christ typologically in his role as (a) prophet; (b) priest; and (c) king.

Hence, in the congregation only men take the positions of authority (king)
Hence, in the congregation only men are to lead in prayer and conduct the worship service (1 Tim. 2:8 - Priest)
Hence, in the congregation only men are to teach and preach over the assembly (1 Tim. 2:11-13; I Cor. 14:30-37) - Prophet
Hence, in the congregation the woman typifies the bride of Christ in submission to the kingly authority of Christ, showing submission in silence while the type of Christ speaks/teaches/preaches and instructs her; submits to his leadership in acts of worship.

This is why all the precepts are not based upon culture but upon the precultural creation establishment of the relative position and role of the man and woman to each other. There is no greater place on earth where this typology should be made manifest but in the congregation which is the "pillar and ground of the truth."

 

Did Calvin "trash the scritpures?"

Really?

 

In respect to this particular (and I might add other particulars) he most certainly did trash the scriptures by his ungodly interpretations.

 

Why the worship of Calvin? You act as if Calvin is the ultimate authority on all things. Do you believe Calvin to be infallible?

 

My statement can be substantiated with plenty of biblical support. What is unfortunate is your response, as you seem to like rhetoric over substance.

1. Fact - Every debated precept is never based upon cultural reasons but on precultural reasons or scripture

2. Fact - these precepts are based upon creation design

3. Fact - There are no approved examples in Scripture that legimately violate these precepts.

 

Ephesians 5:22-32 clearly and explicitly establish the leadership role of the husband in the home.

I Corinthians 11:3 clearly establishes a Divine established chain of authority

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 clearly establishes a pre-cultural basis for Paul's precepts

1 Corinthians 14:30-37 clearly prohibits public speaking of women in the assembly based upon scripture and direct inspired command of God (vv. 34-35, 37)

1 Timothy 2:11-13 clearly prohibts leadership roles over men in the public assembly (pastoral letter) based upon creation order and design.

Old Testament taught the same thing - Isa. 3:11