SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Just a question:

Consider a small group of about 5 Christians, in a dangerous situation, such as war or persecution. Most of them are comparatively new believers with little Bible knowldge.

They are desperate for spiritual feeding, but it's impossible to go to church or contact any other groups of believers.

Maybe their Bibles have been confiscated, or they have had to flee their homes, leaving everything behind except the clothes they are wearing.

The person who is most mature and has a knowledge of the Word happens to be a woman.

Would she be allowed to teach them?

Blessings

Jeanette

 2007/6/16 20:22
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

yes and yes


_________________
Phillip

 2007/6/16 22:50Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Pragmatism

Quote:
And if I am your brother, and if I am better able to pastor a church than a male brother of the church is, why do you not let me?


Because you are a sister, sister and it is Paul your argument is with. Spiritually, [i]there is neither...[/i]that doesn't change your anatomy however, how far are you willing to go with the ramifications of this?

Quote:
And you say, "but Paul said...."

Well, Paul said many things, and the majority of them are not written down. And the ones that are written down forbidding women to talk or teach in a church are disavowed by Paul's behavior in regards to women in many other places.



Ah! Pragmatism! That is incredible, you would argue both from silence [i]and[/i] 'disavow'?

[b]DISAVOW, v.t.[/b] [dis and avow. See Vow.]

1. To deny; to disown; to deny to be true, as a fact or charge respecting ones self; as, he was charged with embezzlement, but he disavows the fact. A man may disavow his name or signature; he may disavow a knowledge of a fact, or his concern in a transaction. Opposed to own or acknowledge.

2. To deny; to disown; to reject.

3. To dissent from; not to admit as true or justifiable; not to vindicate.

The Envoy disavowed some parts of the Presidents proclamation.

Quote:
I personally am unconcerned by not pastoring a church because God has not called me to be a pastor.

I simply wonder why wisdom is not used in this matter. With so many churches falling to the deceit of the enemy, and so few good pastors available of the male bretheren, I simply wonder why female bretheren are not looked at for suitability.



More pragmatism*? This is rather besides the point.

Quote:

Spiritual authority is a matter of marriage in Genesis, and the relation of a wife to her husband, and the relation of a husband to his wife.

To carry that over to the church when there are many female bretheren with Pastoring skills sitting bored to death under the teaching of a less than able male brother seems to be a nice little trick of the devil: Divide and conquer.



But the 'carry over' is [i]Paul's[/i] by way of the mention he makes there in associating what he has just stated ... is this not what you are up against and seemingly not interested in dealing with?

Quote:
As for Paul not saying anything about women in the Church Corporate, he did. He said it in his actions throughout the New Testament. And he said it here:



No. And it is not shoved aside, but this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, it is confusing terminology and application. Otherwise Paul is completely out of line and is completely contradicting himself, are you still ready to level that charge? There is enough insinuation in all this to make it seem so.

We have yet to deal with [i]why[/i] the appeal to Genesis here.

*On a side note it did occur to me that the matter of pragmatism might have some more explanation to it ... I was under the impression of 'The ends justify the means' by and large. Goodness! Give this a gander if your up for some brain sweat;

http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism

Forrest, believe it or not, I do not have a fully formed conclusion here, am challenged at the inception and meaning, what all is entailed ... do we decide by committee, by opinion ...


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/16 22:53Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Words

Quote:
I am not sure how to respond to your comments about Adam and Eve. I do believe that whatever curses arose from the two of them were cancelled at the cross. But as long as we live according to the flesh (which is the cultural church in general, as well as the world) we are also in bondage to all the laws of the flesh. And that will ALWAYS put barriers and walls of hostility between various parties: ex Jew/gentile, slave/master, male/female, parents/kids, etc.



Hmmm, I don't know sister. Our physical deaths were not canceled at the cross ...

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Order? Sequence. Establishment. Authority.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Here is what I have been wondering to bring in from the outside as it were something that is noticed of Paul ... [i]Abuse[/i]. For instance;

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Paul was often bringing a corrective to the church was he not?

Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Dealing with ...

[i]For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but now I write unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.

For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within, whereas them that are without God judgeth? Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.[/i] 1Co 5:3-13

Later admonishing them to restore this same man.
Keep in mind this all part of the same letter here as well as it pertains to the great verse in controversy.

Where I am going with this is the possibility that with all the freedom Jesus brought to women which until that time had been decidedly derogatory towards them in that day, that culture and so forth that the sisters just like the brothers would take it too far and he is actually reeling them back to first principles of conduct, order, authority ... establishment.



_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/16 23:14Profile









 Re: HEY ~ HOMEFREE89 !

[b]Has anyone noticed who started this thread and that he's posted again on pg 16 and prior to that, his question about ladies teaching at Bible College ?

Talk about respecting the thread starter. ha.

[u]We're[/u] all [u]very sorry HomeFree89 !!!![/u]
Best to ask a man it looks like, since that is the question - men submitting to men. (o: }[/b]

In one of my posts I told that we had old retired missionary ladies that taught on Missions at the Bible College.

Addition edit:
We also had a lady dean of woman and a lady teaching child education and children's evangelism. These subjects are fine for woman to share on. I may be forgetting one, but my personal feeling/conviction is, that if there was a lady teaching doctrine or the books of the Bible, Theology of any sort, I would just elect out of those classes myself.
There are some subjects that I think experienced woman are excellent at but I prefer to have male teachers where Theology is involved.
Actually, I don't know how many Good Colleges are left, regardless of gender. Things have changed so much in the last 30 years, I couldn't say that any one Bible College teaches 'everything' correctly.
I wish more emphasis were put on just arming Christians to study for themselves - because it will be GOD who judges us for what we believe in the end. We won't be able to blame our Pastors or teachers for anything we've believed.
We have husband and wife teams teaching Sunday school, but they are old missionaries and they are not teaching doctrine necessarily but more on the lines of worship and our walk with God.
We have about 6 different classes that one can chose from, so no one is forced to sit under a lady. And she's quite the lady at that. She and her husband are still missionaries in Mexico though both are old and not well physically. They're burning out for Jesus, obviously.


But I'm sure your question will generate another 17 pages now. tee-hee.



And may I add, I've never see such a abundance of "p" words on a thread before. Ha.

Well, here's my closing sentence on this thread (edit ~ 'maybe' ~ cuz a woman is entitled to change her mind and edit to add more p words & emphasis as well :) ....

Please proliferate propound partake propend propagate prolate promulgate prologize prudential privileged prolific projected propitious pleasant plausible profuse prosperous pure progressive pleasurable protracted plentious prolonged pious provibly provisional promised pacifying promulged principaled positional purposeful Peace posters.


Puling pleonastic Annie

 2007/6/16 23:50
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: A Woman Speaking Under Authority


crsschk wrote:
UniqueWebRev wrote:

Quote:
And if I am your brother, and if I am better able to pastor a church than a male brother of the church is, why do you not let me?


Quote:
Because you are a sister, sister and it is Paul your argument is with. Spiritually, [i]there is neither...[/i]that doesn't change your anatomy however, how far are you willing to go with the ramifications of this?



Mike,

I don't think sex is the issue at all when it comes to getting the Word of God out.

If you have only women to send as missionaries, should we send none, lest we break a tradition in the Bible?

Yes, a tradition. For all I hear is "Under Law"!

And I am under Grace.

I have no difficulty with a woman submitting to a husband even as he loves and takes care of her. I didn't in my marriages, and I don't now.

Sure, you guys can do the majority of the work for God, while your wife takes care of you so you can do it. She then has her portion in your work, because she is part of you. But you don't do it on your own.

Murdog said that the Holy Spirit was well aware of what Paul said, or the rule against a women speaking in church wouldn't be in the Bible.

I agree. I merely think that the Holy Spirit thought that men would have more sense than to carry the customs of one age into another.

In spiritual terms, and being a "widow', I am married to Jesus, and my desire is unto Him. And He has told me to "WRITE". He didn't say what to write, but I ask Him what He wants on my website before I write it. And He gives me the ideas and the words, or it doesn't get written.

If this is pragmatism, well, at least someone is reading the material at that little website that the Holy Spirit runs with my help. And if a seed is sown or one watered, I am content.

And if the only means to get the Word of God out is to use a woman, I say use her.

Is it pragmatism, or a means to an end, that has no sin in it, and only the pride of pleasing my Husband, because I am in obedience?

The Word gets out, and that is what I care about. I really do not care who does it.

I do care that the male part of the church is so hidebound by the cultural customs of another age, and tied up in tradition to the point of the Word not getting out effectively.


[color=993300]Matthew 15: 2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?[/color]

My Husband tells me to "WRITE", so I do. Jesus never cared very much about tradition anyway.

I do not think that every woman should write, teach, preach or Pastor. I don't think every man should either. But those that are called to do it will prosper, for the Lord is with them, for their obedience, and because of His enablement.

And if God is not with them, and their words are not of the Word, well, their ministry will not prosper.

If you recall, Gamaliel said the same thing about Jesus, but no one was listening. God meant for them not to.

But as my Husband, God is asking for me to write what He wants me to write, and evidently be listened to, in a small way.

And since He is both enabling me, and prospering the little website, I would say I am in obedience on this.


Blessings,

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/6/17 5:18Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: A wall ...

Dear Forrest ....

Nope. nope. nope ... ;-)
Sometimes these silly smilies are helpful to give some manner of ... aim here.

Quote:
I don't think sex is the issue at all when it comes to getting the Word of God out.


Nor I.
Quote:
If you have only women to send as missionaries, should we send none, lest we break a tradition in the Bible?

Yes, a tradition. For all I hear is "Under Law"!

And I am under Grace.



Ah, ... no. Difficult it is to stick to just the question but I am not budging just yet. We would have to go back into the whole matter of what 'law' is being spoken of here and this use as you would have it is not what is being spoken of ... You can be under all the grace you wish but the [i]law[/i] of gravity will still make oatmeal out of your melon if you jump off a skyscraper ...

It is not the law of marriage that is being spoken of but the 'law' of order, sequence and ramifications if I am following Paul's logic there. Neither can it be merely 'tradition' that he is appealing to, it appears it is far more history as established fact, he is not making a case for something arbitrary, negotiable, take it or leave it ... it is a statement ... [b][i]For[/i][/b] ...

Quote:
Murdog said that the Holy Spirit was well aware of what Paul said, or the rule against a women speaking in church wouldn't be in the Bible.

I agree. I merely think that the Holy Spirit thought that men would have more sense than to carry the customs of one age into another.



Do you not see the danger inherent in this style of thinking? This is not about 'customs' and what you are doing is what far too many do, that is to make scripture arbitrary and 'fitting' to the whims of mere men (yes, [i]and[/i] women since we must be so didactic now). In other words it is 'adjustable' depending on how [u]we[/u] wish to interpret it. We have had a great problem with this way of thinking elsewhere when discussing the ideas of so called 'evolution' with a certain individual and his penchant for cherry picking his way through the scriptures. It puts everything into a state of 'doubtful' because the creation and flood accounts are merely allegorical, Jesus is seen completely as bringing a social 'gospel' and as 'pacifist' ... on and on it goes. Whatever pragmatism might mean anymore this approach to scriptures as being adjustable to [i]our[/i] whims and fancies, our "I thinks" is ... baffling to say the least.

Quote:
I have no difficulty with a woman submitting to a husband even as he loves and takes care of her. I didn't in my marriages, and I don't now.



In other words, [i]conditional[/i]? That is half pointed and half question.

It is still a form of pragmatism ... and rebellion. Pride as well. Goodness, you are more and more proving my point for me here about the nature of usurping and the antagonism of spiritual submission. I keep holding off all the other "[i]of course[/i]" aspects that are readily available, noted, documented by way of scripture ... those which quickly come in as an inrush to indeed ... [i]disavow[/i] to use your word and it seems to be more of [i]disallow[/i] this very demanding answer to what was stated and [i]why[/i] it was stated ... [b][i]in the church[/i][/b] as to [i]order[/i], as to [i]authority[/i], (primarily spiritual at that), as to [i]establishment[/i], that which [b]God[/b] established, your argument is again with Paul and more so with God Himself.

I may have likely got your ire up a bit by way of challenging a question towards you in the usage of the [u]title[/u] "minister". I am simple asking if you have biblical, scriptural warrant for it ... It is not an attack on your [i]person[/i] and do recall that the function of [i]ministering[/i] was not in dispute, nor what you "do" as you continue to make mention of, writing and so forth. None of that is again in dispute. That many 'male' preachers, 'ministers' what have you are failing does not warrant an usurping of roles ... Would we, using this logic then say that the admonishen towards men being effeminate is now arbitrary and 'OK' because the men failed, the women came in to 'take charge' so the male role can now be pragmatised and he can go ahead and take on these attributes? Is it not outlandish?

Are we not exactly in the midst of "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Quote:
In spiritual terms, and being a "widow', I am married to Jesus, and my desire is unto Him. And He has told me to "WRITE". He didn't say what to write, but I ask Him what He wants on my website before I write it. And He gives me the ideas and the words, or it doesn't get written.

If this is pragmatism, well, at least someone is reading the material at that little website that the Holy Spirit runs with my help. And if a seed is sown or one watered, I am content.



You are on the defensive and [i]that[/i] in it's self is what I was attributing to earlier about how our reactions are telling of us. If we are strictly convinced that we are not in error then why the backlash? This never was or is intended to be merely a personal application or 'assault' if you will, the desire and drive only that which is "what sayeth the scriptures". Now I do feel a need to ask for forgiveness because I think I unwittingly did ... insinuate some of that earlier in somewhat of a sloppy manner, not my intention and yet not an excuse either. Forgive me.

Quote:
Is it pragmatism, or a means to an end, that has no sin in it, and only the pride of pleasing my Husband, because I am in obedience?

The Word gets out, and that is what I care about. I really do not care who does it.

I do care that the male part of the church is so hidebound by the cultural customs of another age, and tied up in tradition to the point of the Word not getting out effectively.



Ah, Paris Reidhead to the rescue! This humanism is so subtle ... Weaved through all of this is the notion that ... [i]I[/i], [i]I[/i], [i]I[/i] am the determiner of how things 'work'. The Lord Himself is the one who [i]'gets the word out'[/i] [u]through[/u] the channels and instrumentality that [b]He chooses[/b] and that would almost support what you are saying except that the [i]order[/i] is inversed. "[b]I[/b]" determine that since ... a,b,c have not happened or due to accentuating circumstances [b]I[/b] shall take it upon myself to determine what it is to be done even to the point of over riding established [i]thought[/i], "law" both of which are Gods providence [i]alone[/i]. This is very much what Paul is appealing to, not [i][b]his[/b][/i] personal ideas. He is in fact appealing to the very scriptures themselves. That is the buttress that you are up against, not mine, not "Paul's".

Again, this is not "customs" at all, you are only trying to make them so calling them traditions and the like. I indeed do have a very large problem with this, that you would usurp the scriptures themselves at once saying you agree then turning it around with a series of [i]but's[/i]...

I think you are injecting far too much 'personal application' into this rather than wrestling with the text itself.
Quote:
And since He is both enabling me, and prospering the little website, I would say I am in obedience on this.


It may prove your disobedience! Please hear what I am and am not saying ... Do we not have this same form of pragmatic approach that spells the success of something but it's largeness, it's quantity in church's of the prosperity notion? Of the 'mega-church' variety, the Rick Warren methodology? Do large numbers, prosperity avail ... substance and substrate, spiritual [i]truth[/i]? Do they necessarily always equate together? It is the wrong formula for proving anything because it is just as possible that one or the other [i]can[/i] be true ...

Look here at your surroundings. By that standard SermonIndex ought to be turning back donors in [i]droves![/i]. Is there truly a greater collection of ... spiritual thought and spiritual depth all under one seemingly close compartment out there? It is not an entity unto itself because it pushes out to greater borders, other places where truth is told just as well, church history, revival history ... what the fellow-shippers might bring to it. That is a bit of hyperbole to be sure and a slight exaggeration to just to prove the point. But this is yet [i]still[/i] a grass roots, Holy Spirit dependent effort here ... goodness this forum itself with all the ... what's the word? Beauty, muddiness, misunderstandings, joy, pain, ... [i]challenge[/i] ... intensity, at times strife and ugly, wrong headed, wrong spirited ... Do you recognize how many forums or 'chat rooms' of this sort have had to close down due to 'in fighting'? Just as well, how many [i]ought[/i] to be closed down due to that?

But somehow this marvelous, peculiar, oft times perplexing ... thing ... keeps on enduring through it all, I do not know anything of it's true reach and effect but what I might guess at makes me tremble and on top of that it is being run by idiots! Fools! Goofballs and if anything I would boast of my chief status by mere association and the uncanniness that Greg would have such a dork doing some of this 'moderating' business...

Sigh, I am indeed poking at some of this with a bit of a historical bent to first inceptions as there was a bit of a running joke along these lines when Greg first asked me to partake of this role.(*Edit, felt it best to make some very clarifying remarks here. The point is that this is not so structed in such away as to be 'professionaly' orientated. And forgive the ... folly of attributing wrong notions with this play on words. Look to your webmaster here who stays back behind the scenes so much. His example of humble service and servanthood ought to be more pronounced by his sheer [i]silence[/i] and ability to be lead truly by the Spirit, by his desire that Gods word not be [i]chained[/i] and is to be given out [i]freely[/i] not that everyone can accept that, his is one of the faith of a George Mueller that God will take care of that which is [i]His[/i]. I am and was speaking of my own 'foolishness' and did not intend to make some sort of nefarious implication by use of such words.) But on the serious side, it is very much serious indeed. And I do not doubt for one second your own sincerity, nor what you are called to do, nor is there any disputing or perception of error or wrong in just what you do in fact do on your own site. There may be some for all I know ... It is all something [i]other[/i] to the matter at hand and the interjection of hypotheticals and the 'not caring' about the issue of 'being a pastor', 'not being [u]called[/u] to that' etc. is not getting us anywhere nearer to the point of what this all means. I am indeed convinced that the reason you are not [u]called[/u] to being a pastor is because you [i]cannot[/i] be [u]called[/u] to that function. That the reasons do very much lie in that which Paul reasoned with scripture as his foundation and that the women who are usurping [i]this[/i] function in [i]that[/i] setting are indeed in error. I am not however quite ready nor entirely convinced how it all works out in other functions, other settings and so forth. It just seems to me that some footing needs to be established at the deepest levels of what is and was meant essentially in the two grand verses of so much so called 'controversy' [i][b]before[/b][/i] we can go on to all the other extrapolations that are trying to be derived from the ... definition yet to be defined.

I am truly beginning to understand and sense that which must plague our own Philologos of some 40 plus years of studying Gods word when he attempts to just get a working definition established and has to contest with 'all the other things' simultaneously. Not necessarly a grand agitation or irritation just a ...

:-?


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/17 11:14Profile









 Re: Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?



In previous threads on this matter, an even older thread in which philologos participates, was linked to. His relevant posts begin on p4 there (as far as I can see), and all are worth reading. He quotes scripture with a view to keeping his answers to the point of 'in church', which was the thread-starter's question, as well as distinguishing between forms of ministry other than teaching. There is so much to be gleaned from his posts, that I don't propose to give away any of this exposition, here. Please take time to read them yourselves.

[b]'Can women preach/teach in church?'[/b]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=1751&forum=36&start=30&viewmode=flat&order=0]https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=1751&forum=36&start=30&viewmode=flat&order=0[/url]


[He says 'outside' church, 'is a different world'.}

 2007/6/17 11:57
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Appealing to

Thanks sister, had much the same mind to go back and do just this ...


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/17 12:28Profile









 Re: Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?


Thanks Mike,

Actually, there is also a description of the way the church in which he is an elder conducts its meetings, in one of the threads on baptism. I couldn't find it today, but will go on looking.

philologos explains how the elders there allow the Holy Spirit's leading of the sisters' ministry, guide the elders also, on the day.

 2007/6/17 12:33





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy