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
crsschk
Member



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

 Re: Found!

Quote:
Many of the things in life that inflict the greatest injury, grief, or pain, stem from the fact that we suffer from illusions. We are not true to one another as facts, seeing each other as we really are; we are only true to our misconceived ideas of one another. According to our thinking, everything is either delightful and good, or it is evil, malicious, and cowardly.


Difficult to even extract that much from this ... But Bless God indeed sister! Recall this very well ... Oh to just be bloody honest ...


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/26 15:40Profile









 Re: "be honest"

AMEN, but if we could just do it without the "bloody" part, that would be great.

"Truth in the Inward Parts" by T.A. Sparks

Praise God! 2Jn 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

 2007/6/26 17:06
UniqueWebRev
Member



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

 Re: A Woman Speaking Under Authority

EDIT: for continuity.


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/6/27 5:58Profile
UniqueWebRev
Member



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

 Re: A Woman Speaking Under Authority

crsschk wrote:

Quote:

Forrest, all I can say is that I would agree with Philologos wholeheartedly, 100 %... I was and am hearing you loud and clear and was assuredly ignoring the greater part of it, all in some attempt to just get at the root of the matter, to look at it and examine it against scripture, primarily the two verses in question. It is not the be all end all, at all. Nor is it most of the things you would have me thinking and never stated.

Your reactions though ...



You were and am hearing me?

When did you hear me?

What did you hear?

No.

You have only heard Ron, Mike, and even then, it is against what you want, and against what you believe should continue to be true, forever.

And much as I value Ron, and his skill at answering pointed questions that have to do with what Ron feels God should be able to do with all of us, His property, Ron's opinons, even though I agree with them, and did before I knew he had written them elsewhere on some forgotton thread, has very little to do with anything I have said.

Or what any of the sisters have said on this thread.

Ron was stating clearly and succinctly his opinion about God's ability to use whomsoever He will, and how He always has.

I have no problem with Ron's opinion, and am glad you don't either.

But what is it that you were/are hearing me say?

Up to your next to last post, I was an usurper and a rebel.

In the current one, I don't like to be challenged. "I pour my 'self' and my personal experience into everything and want to make that the lense through how everything is decided." Yes, I know you wrote that as a general statement, but frankly, the words, "We don't like to be challenged, do we?" should be accompanied by the words, 'He said sarcasticly', because that's the way it sounded the first time I saw it.

But because I am worn out, I could not get exercised by it, and can find a dozen expressions to describe those words, and all of them might be true. "We don't like to be challenged, do we?" He said irritably, nastily, silkily, sweetly, charmingly, teasingly, bitterly, philosophicaly, metaphoricly, and so on, ad infinitum, for without the tone discriptions, it is for the reader to define, and can be taken any which way available.

And worse:
Quote:
Some of us are rather newish to this fellowship and already have everything all figured out and this [i]"I know what you are thinking[/i]", "[i]I know your 'type'[/i]" mentality creeps in and spells us with all kinds of notions and convulsions and stated ... atrocities. It's all so much rubbish.



You can choose the tone on that comment.

Since I am the only one 'newish' on SI on this particular thread, who is focused on the struggle for understanding on this thread, and I neither have everything figured out, know what everyone is thinking, or know anyone's type here, evidently it is my notions and convulsions and stated atocities are all just so much rubbish because what I say is rubbish, unacceptable, and hence, not to be bothered with.

Well, that may be true.

When I spoke to Dorcas, I was merely stating a truth.

I am tired. So very tired.

I ache in mind and body from the hours that I have spent writing here at SI the past few weeks or so.

God doesn't give me any help here, as He does at my site. There, even if I have had no sleep, am in pain or distress, I can still write, because I am mostly a pen there in the Holy Spirit's Hand.

At SI, I have to deal with you all with my sometimes limited proficiency. Now, I am more than willing to fight out doctrinal issues to the last scripture, to the extent of my strength, as fast as I can.

But my inner peace is gone.

I have drained myself, and I can't keep up.

I have spent every free moment for over four months here at SI, and I am completely, totally, burnt to a crisp.

Despite what you say, the boards here do look like a game of speed scripture. For those that do not catch my reference, it is to 'speed chess', a varient of tournament chess where the game is played under time constraints, to limit those that do not play well from participating for very long.

I admit I do not play well all the time.

I enjoy the challenge, the discourse, the fellowship...I don't mind being wrong, as long as someone points to me exactly what I'm wrong about.

But I do get tired out by sweeping statements, nor do I respond well to generalities, or random philosophical ramblings. I'm not saying I'm not capable of making a generality. I am. And it's a major problem here, I think, to make such a statement.

For try as I may, I keep reading what you say, Mike, and trying to respond to what you say, and I feel as if I am pounding on a security door with an intercom that doesn't work on my end.

I can hear you, but whether I shout or whisper, tackle the whole subject or a part of it, from the front, the back, the side, the top or the bottom, in anger, in distress, or in complete indifference except as an intellectual problem, I know from what you are writing that you haven't heard a word I have said.

You haven't noted my attempts to narrow in on an issue that I believe is one of law versus grace, in an orderly manner, under the appropriate authority.

Nor have you noted that we sisters on this thread are speaking from a viewpoint of God having Called us.

Despite Paul. Despite the Bible.

Because Paul's been dead a long time, the times have almost reached the end of days, and everything is falling apart.

I listened to Stephen Kaung. In fact, I took over twenty pages of notes.

You focused in your writing on a mere few lines about Delegated Authority and the Roman Centurion's understanding of it in regards to Jesus's authority as the Son of God. Of course the dear man had a perfect understanding of the world doing the Word's will. In the Roman Empire, the Centurion's line of work, no one dared disobeyed without facing a death penalty. Not even the Generals.

Why should the Roman Centurion think God, who creates and destroys, would fail to have a handle on matters, much less the delegated authority to Jesus?

I have no problem with linear authority, or the delegation thereof.

I don't in the least mind staying outside the church buildings, and outside anyone in the Church Corporate's approval. Not having been brought up in any denominational gathering, I don't see what the big deal is, unless it is the loss of order, of structure, and therefore, an understandable line of authority.

And that is what I think your problem is all about. The loss of order, of structure, and therefore, an understandable line of authority.

That, to me, is a lack of adapability to the world state. Armies in war lose no structure when the officers are gone. Authority keeps transfering down until you reach the buck privates, and even then, order of command is by date of enlistment, and if down to two or more persons enlisted on the same day, you flip a coin, or draw straws.

Well, in the days soon to come, there are going to be a lot of new enlistees, that barely made it through boot camp before being put in authority.



Some denominations worry less about what men think the Bible said, and more about what God wants now, today, under these circumstances, and circumstances in a future that is looking very grim, to me at least.

Ron makes perfect sense to me, because he is speaking in line with every hint and nuance of the New Testament Apostolic churches, as well as Old Testament pragmatism on God's part.

Not the philosophy of pragmatism in a Bible Dictionary, but the the practicality of what needs to be done kind of pragmatism, in a Standard Dictionary.

In other words, who is there to get what God wants done? If it's a women, a man, or a talking donkey, I really don't care. I don't think God does either, if it gets the job done.

God's order and ideal will only be expressed under Jesus, when He takes authority, and rules with a rod of iron. And who will be in authority over whom at that point is up to Jesus, and will have nothing to do with gender.

But between now, and then, are going to be some very dark times, and as usual in a time of disorder and conflict, God is going to use unusual means to get things done.

Women in ministry are going to be part of that. So for that matter are angels, yelling "Woe, Woe, Woe!" , and they are not even members of the Church Corporate! But you know, in the end days, they preach one heck of a warning!

I am truly sorry you don't like the necessity of this. I prefer order to chaos as well, but we are going into chaos.

I am too tired for any more guess work, so you will have to say what you understand, or don't; what you are hearing from me, or not; and even what you did hear me say.

How else can I comment on it?


Blessings,

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/6/27 6:09Profile









 Re: Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?



Hi Mike,

A reminder from another thread which might help Forrest and Jeanette to understand what has been going on here. You said:

'Perhaps this is my own fault for not being more clear. The tendency to generalise things comes when there are often related issues developing across other posts and threads. Considering the particular position I am coming from, reading across many items here, that tendecncy will result often in that. The hope is that we all would just examine ourselves and re-read what we are writting in our responses.

Will put this disclaimer here in front of all that follows. There is nothing personal to be taken from these excerpts other than to point out the problems which I am seeing here that can be divisive. It is not an attack on your personhood nor an assumption that anyone is out to get you, that you are being picked on. It is for that very reason that I resisted even responding to the questions laidout by Dorcas earlier, the other was to truly pray about my own motives and to be clear.'


Obviously, I know this is what you are partly about in this thread also. (For those who don't know, Mike did then respond to issues I'd raised in a previous post.)

Diane (roadsign) responded:

Quote:
..there is nothing personal to be taken from these excerpts other than to point out the problems which I am seeing here that [b]can be divisive[/b].



'I guess I'm trying to understand the benefit of generalized comments that are “nothing personal”. [b]Of course this is all about personal! Discussion is about the personal journey of growth, falling, and learning![/b]'

(Emphasis mine in Diane's words. Hers, in the quote from Mike.)



So, Mike, I want you to know this thread [u]has[/u] challenged me - as did the last one on women 'teaching'. But it has served more to remind me of what I already know, than to make me [i]discard[/i] any of what I know.

I know you are chewing very hard on what is going on here. And perhaps you (wisely) decide not to write some of the attributions which may be running through your mind.

Yes, I am very different from the ordinary woman. But I'm not sure I'm [i]so[/i] different from many women of God I've met, that I would stand out amongst them. Not that I [i]conform[/i].

People like me are called 'weird' because we work on a different wavelength from the world [i]all the time[/i]. Like you, we have an oblique 'take' on most things, not just the occasional wry observation. Worse than that, we take [i]everything[/i] very [i]seriously[/i] and are always ready to turn a conversation into a testimony.

Having said all that, I knew what I was doing when I shared privately with you, of things from my past; because doing so robbed me of a certain camouflage, and the assumptions that can be made through ignorance.

So, seeing you genuinely grappling with the issues arising here - this, as if it is God's timing - has made me hold back what I know of the theology. Because experience teaches me that one needs one's own revelation from God.

This doesn't mean I won't ask more questions, or suggest scripture in which the answers lie, but I will do my best not to spell it out for you.

I have been waiting for Jeanette or Forrest (or anyone else) to respond, because you have also made unmistakable allusions to subjects on which I've posted both recently in the past, as if my knowledge of these is anti-scriptural.

Yet there is not a [i]man[/i] nor a brother posting on these boards, who is prepared to answer my questions about the abortion issue. Just to spell it out here: this is about whether there will be any obstetric doctors or nurses in heaven.

Because if they are murderers, then saving the life of a woman at the expense of a child is pure humanism. Hard though it may be, the woman should be allowed to die also, if the apparently proposed non-prematurely-ending-of-all-pregnancies is the [i]Christian[/i] response to her dilemma, and was put into practise [i]religiously[/i].

Does [i]no-one[/i] see how far away from the gospel of life and health this is in practice...? men having to stand by and lose their wife [u]as well[/u]...? this would make them believe in [i][b]Jesus?[/b][/i]

[i]Really[/i] is this what you and others think [u]God[/u] condemned the human race to, when He made us like Him?



I am not, and never never have been, a feminist. My [i]take[/i] on the matters of which feminists have made politics, are [i]entirely[/i] from personal experience [u]of God[/u] [i]and[/i] Bible study. In fact, I know Christian [i]men[/i] who have more sympathy for feminism than I do!

That doesn't mean I 'believe in' abortion. It means I [i]understand[/i] what is going on, and, much of what I understand, is [u]confirmed[/u] in scripture.

The matter of 'innocence' first applies to those who have not committed a crime - broken a law. It is a sin to kill people who have not offended.
It doesn't matter how old they are, but it presupposes their legal existence.

The fallen state of man is why there are [i]any[/i] sad or unnatural ends to pregnancies. Those who feel called into medical and paramedical careers are dealing with our falleness [i]all the time[/i] - which is God-like.

 2007/6/27 7:34









 Re: Blessed but still hurt.

This thread has done nothing for me, EXCEPT make me love these ladies all the more.

The previous threads, on this subject, was posted more than once and a few times I asked that we refer back to them, Also stated early here that I agreed with Ron's posts and requested the other ladies give those two threads a glance. Mike posted one and Dorcas did much earlier in this thread.

What ensued after that is beyond my comprehension, except that I know that these ladies were falsely accused and actually hurt and it didn't seem to matter that they were hurt.

Page after page they explained that they had no intent to usurp authority, but despite even physical disabilities, (myself included) we were pushed and pushed to try to understand, WHY Ron's posts were posted and yet then came the endless posts that even I took against something that I may have said also.

GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION.

He also doesn't hurt his sheep - as I tried to explain just a few pages ago ... or the previous page ... I forget.

I just read back the 7 pages of Miracles and read the testimonies of some here - posts by Forrest, Dorcas and comments that Diane made.

ALL I've come out with, of all of this combined, is an even more intense Love for each of the woman on this Forum. Period.

These ladies HAVE BEEN HONEST. Through-out this entire website.

That is why some pages back, I put "Woman's Ministry" in a post's header -- in hopes that us ladies could use this thread to minister to each other, without the constant stress of trying to figure out What on earth is being said here, by endless lengthy posts that contradicted the very links suggested.

I can't tell you all adequately what GOOD did come out of this ... but it's a deep pathos and God type Love for the ladies on this Forum and that is the best that words will do for me right now.

I know why I put up Oswald Chambers - and I hope you do too. It was to guard the hearts of these dear Sisters.

Honesty ? Well, there you have it.

LOVE always to all - both sisters and brothers.
Annie


Edit: The "hurt" I feel is FOR the Body of Christ.
Can the arm say to the leg, I don't need you - type thing.
I hurt when I see any division or arms and legs being hit.

 2007/6/27 12:38









 Re: One Body.

Sharing just a wee part of a testimony here, if it's alright. Adding the "innerds" that I've read from these good ladies and gents on this site.

I wouldn't go into this, if I didn't have good reason - for the Body - as I don't like attention directed at self unless it can serve to bring the Body closer to what GOD had intended for it.

I had and have a wonderful wonderful Dad, but I could not be 'raised' by him.

My mom wanted a girl and dad did too. They kept trying and had 4 boys. Finally I was born last, making 5 of us.

Mom came to some crashing realization that she was unable to raise five children, she had a break-down when I was two months old and my oldest brother of 13 yr.s old, called the police for help because his mommy couldn't stop crying.

Mom decided to not return to us - leaving Dad to figure how to care for all of us.
He could only find one couple who would stay at the house but Only with those 3 boys who were school aged.

My younger brother was two years old and went with my grandmother, because she could only take a child that could walk.

Despite Dad's desire for a girl, I had to go to anyone who would take me. Some family and one friend.

Poor Dad had to work 2 to 3 jobs to care for his home with the three boys and live-in help Plus take care of the expenses of Mom, and the two homes my younger brother and I were in. Somehow he managed and we never went hungry or without medical insurance, etc.. He was and is the most incredible man I've ever met. He was only 34 when my Mom left us all.
He worked in Brooklyn and had to commute to N.J. where the house was that he bought with my Mom, just before I was born. He loved her so much ... I can't imagine him losing her that way and being left to care for 5 children alone.
He visited us more than I can figure how he had time to.

By time I was 13, I was in my 5th home.

From toddler age on - the abuse began and I was told right out that I wasn't really wanted wherever I was and that a great favor was being done for me that anyone would take me in. One of my brothers said it was my fault that Mommy left them, just for being born. From home to home, this was the consensus, that I should have not been born and the abuse came mainly in very unimaginable words to a child and later into my early twenties, until I was able to get away from 'home'.

Not going into major detail with the blow by blow of each home, but I was never able to escape this "not being wanted" for all of my life. I later married and that was the case there also. Twice. Adultry on their parts from what I found out, even before our marriages and other ways of neglect and being left alone for the majority of time at home, only confirmed a life-long story of - not being wanted and thus Never having a "Home". Never having been loved in any home, in 54 years of life.

But as I shared on a certain thread of late, JESUS was there in the form of just a picture on a wall from the age of 2.
I felt I knew Him and that He was making Himself known to me through-out my life.

Whether this sounds outrageous or not, but He appeared to me when I was around 10. He gentley tried to tell me, that my sinful way of 'how to do life' was wrong. I wish I had listened then, because I proceded to look for love in all the wrong places until I officially heard the Bible for the first time in my 20's.

When I became physically disabled 5 years ago, I almost lost it ... because I love taking care of other people more than life itself. Mostly the elderly and anyone else for that matter. The sick, children, street people, the mentally anguished and so on.
It was a dark night of the soul. I felt I was called to just serve humans and even help just animals ... ha ... even bugs.
I couldn't believe that the only thing I loved doing was now being taken from me too.

I knew what inner pain felt like, that's why I wanted to make it my life's ambition 'to alleviate pain' since I was a child.
The only time I get "upset" is when I feel someone may be hurting others by their beliefs, then the not timid side comes out. After 5 years of the Lord using this time in solitary confinement, for the most part, I see it's just His refining hand.
He needed to sift my own pain out of my desire to help others so it wouldn't marr His work through me.
I'm not perfect --- but can ONLY give Glory to God that He is still 'growing me up' to be less of Annie and more of Him.
I don't believe I will "be like Him" until I "see Him" .... at least that's what The Word says.

Having to go into the details of the 7 homes I've lived in thus far would be impossible for me. And far too long and gorey of a story to put anyone through and besides, my hands swell when typing - ha - Thank GOD. But I've had to give the complete story a few times to Dr.s and [b]GLORY TO GOD ALONE[/b], they sat with open mouths and could not believe I was still alive and "normal" ... whatever that is. HA!

I love Jesus so much, that 's all I can say, for ALL that's He's done for me & others. That is the Testimony of His Love and Keeping Power and ever present help and continuous inner healing, even when new diseases hit.
I don't take 'any' hurting in others lightly, because I don't think HE does. And why I don't give up on 'anyone' ... when all of Science, Psychology, Plus - would say that, just this life of mine alone should/would make one useless.
No, no-one is Useless - no one is perfect - but each is made in the image of GOD and He loves them dearly - it's just that they don't know how much He does love them and Everyone else too - and can become autonomous of Him or isolate from others because of that.
This world needs an extra show of what Christ's Love and Compassion is and not more wars, in any sense of that type approach to peoples. And "we're" the [u]only[/u] Witness to the world of this and the only source of His Love & compassion in the flesh for each other too.

BLESS GOD with LOVE!

 2007/6/27 14:27
wallbuilder
Member



Joined: 2007/2/15
Posts: 44


 Re:

Hi Forrest

God Bless you. I just wanted to respond to encourage you about this whole topic. Obviously when someone already has their mind made up and absolutely will not listen to anything else or anyone else it makes for difficult communication.

So there you have it-like I said at the very beginning, before I wasn't allowed to post at this site, this is a controversy that has gone on for thousands of years-and won't be over any time soon.

But Forrest, I have apprecitated your unbiased approach and the things you have posted here. If anything, this has only strengthened my stance even more for women.

Mike, obviously there are many people here that disagree with your dogmatic stance on this topic. Is it even possible to say that we can agree to disagree, or must it go on and on and on? I respectfully disagree with most if not all of what you have written on this topic. Likewise you would say the same for me. Can it end there?

Of course, every person who truly wants to see God move in the church in this nation must grapple with this issue. Because in the last days, God says, in Joel, "I will pour out my Spirit on ALL flesh, your sons and daughters will prophecy". I think partly that's why there is such conflict about this.

God Bless yall's-I'm onto another topic now.

Barb (Wallbuilder)

 2007/6/27 17:06Profile









 Re: Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?


Hi Annie,

Thanks for all you shared, and your love for us all. :-)



Mike,

I want to apologise if this sounded patronising:

Quote:
This doesn't mean I won't ask more questions, or suggest scripture in which the answers lie, but I will do my best not to spell it out for you.

It was intended to encourage your dissection of the issues this thread has raised, until you find what you are looking for.

Please remember part of my confidence is based on my personal response to God in the wake of specific preaching about the topics of praying and evangelism (mainly), and my experience of putting to the test, my hearing of His word and obeying it (the exercise of (my) faith - that is, my believing His word to me, or, as Ron Bailey would put it, my 'right response to revelation') in practical situations.

Thus, I do know I have spiritual authority from God. This is the [i]lot[/i] of all believers who will possess it. I know how it works and on what it is based and can show that in scripture.

As far as I can tell, it is this little dynamic for which you are searching... and you will find... Praise the Lord!

I hope you see that I had a [i]bye[/i] into the understanding though, because it was openly and freely offered through biblical exposition.

The answer is not directly in the quote from Ron Bailey on p26. Neither does it cut across order in 'the body' when it assembles for worship.

And, it is exercised equally within and outside 'church' situations, paying attention to the contraints and opportunities in both. Amen.

 2007/6/28 5:16
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re:

Quote:
Of course, every person who truly wants to see God move in the church in this nation must grapple with this issue. Because in the last days, God says, in Joel, "I will pour out my Spirit on ALL flesh, your sons and daughters will prophecy". I think partly that's why there is such conflict about this.


Insightful comments, Barb. I believe the Joel reference must be linked with Eph. 2:15 - One body reconciled to God. That would have to enclude the entire Epistle, of course.

I am convinced that the way out of this endless pit is not up, but down – it is through brokenness and repentance. One of the most painful realizations to face is the fact that the church has been more like the older brother of the Prodigal Son, than like the Father. I highly suspect (certainly it is true in my background) that there is a close parallel between the Older Brother Syndrome and the suppression of saints – not just women but many others.

Our questions betray our mindset. Verbs like “permit”, “forbid”, “allow” usually refer to what MAN should or shouldn’t do: WE. In other words, WE (man) run the church. And that becomes the mindset from which all scripture is interpreted – what MAN should or shouldn’t do.

The epistles were ‘occasional’ or ‘situational’. That is theological jargon meaning that they were written to address specific situations in the church. They were not intended to be systematic theologies. They dealt with specific problems the churches were facing. So the question remains: Did Paul forbid women to teach or did he forbid ungodly women to teach. If it is the later, then we must apply THAT principle across the board. Of course, that would then disqualify hordes of spiritual leaders in the church. (You see, by following the principle, we are actually raising the bar, not lowering it!)

There are two critical factors in the furtherance of God’s kingdom: His saints (witnesses) and his Word. (the message). Where there is a quenching of either, we have to ask some very serious questions.

McArthur’s conclusion: “Women can speak God’s word anywhere they want, except in the church” is wrought with concern. First, to tell ANYONE they can do what THEY want – is man-centered. Women, just like men need to be surrendered to the authority of the Spirit, not their wishes or even legalistic boxes.

McArthur et al, by their conclusion, limit not only 50% of saints, but also they limit the proclamation of Word. Would this not please the devil?

I am convinced that if we wish to see revival, we must relinquish our hold on the church and our desire to run it. Would it not be better to see a thread entitled, “Does God anoint/equip women to be leaders in the Church?” After all, it is clear from scripture that GOD is the one who gifts his saints. So the issue should fall back on God, not on man.


Diane





_________________
Diane

 2007/6/28 8:49Profile





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