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:

Quote:
(Psst, I think they have the women mp3's on here for "us women" and might not admit to listening to any of those wonderful sermons anyway!! LOL)



And you would be mistaken sister.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/5 22:44Profile
JesusIsMyLrd
Member



Joined: 2005/10/28
Posts: 119
Iowa, USA

 Re:

Ummm...

i'm not the moderator, so i don't say this paragraph commandingly, but i think that wisdom would dictate that we either shut this forum down, or get back to the origional question... It seems to me there are some feelings being hurt, sides being taken, and we are not, for the most part, being "full of grace" as our Lord Jesus was.


Intense4him, i hope that you can recieve this, but please don't poke at fun with the brothers here, because you are in essance calling us hell bound hypocrites by what you said... and for Christ's sake, don't take sides... please carefully consider your heart.


Wallbuilder, please look at your motives also for posting. Please don't slander, and please, be respectful in your heart to the brothers and sisters here who dissagree with you (for whome Christ died also). i don't know your heart, so that's why i'm asking you to examine it, and not passing judgement on you.

To everyone else; please, let's be gracious to eachother.

Phillipians 2:1-16

God bless you all. Put Jesus first and all else will follow.

Please hear my heart in this. Thank you.

In Christ's love,
-nathan


_________________
Nathan

 2007/6/5 23:28Profile









 Re:

That's a good one Nathan.

I only would like to say, since wallpaper mentioned Elizabeth Elliott....

Wallpaper - the only problem I saw in your last post is that you're not reading ours. I explained a lot about E. Elliott's feelings about her radio programs and her books in my first post, but you haven't read some of our posts well.
I guess it's the "emotions" of this topic.

I know I've said it before - some issues are not worth keeping on against each other for and I consider this topic to be a minor here. No matter what - Only God's Word is Infallible.

Hope you can glean from all the good on this site and from these folks here.

Blessed Day!
Annie

 2007/6/6 0:10









 Re: Continued ...

I just read from the thread that crsschk gave and boy was that a good discussion, except when "emotions" came across again in some posts.

To shorten it - I read Philologos' posts mostly because I knew he'd get around to the grammar.
Yup, Present Infinitive Active. "to be teaching/to be in authority" (or exerting dominance).

Very happy to have seen that thread from 2004.

Reckon also, that is why both Timothy's and Titus are called the Pastoral Epistles.



Thanks for the link on this previous page crsschk.

 2007/6/6 1:00









 Re:

Hi all

I was wondering whether to join this discussion or no. Partly because of NOT having any emotional reaction to anything posted so far! And, like the Predestination/free will debate, it's a case of "been there done that".

As some of you know, I was a minister in the Welsh Presbyterian Church. The Lord called me into it, and there was never any desire to usurp authority, even if able, (in the Presbyterian system the elders have the real power, and the minister is merely a sort-of "honorary elder", among the others, [EDIT, just a small addition], and subject to [i]them[/i] if anything.

Then the Lord called me out, but not because of being a woman.

I used to preach of course, but any authority wasn't mine but the authority of the Word itself, as far as I was concerned. Also part of the purpose the church was employing me for.

Why the Lord does sometimes call women, against the Word through Paul, (on the surface of it at least), I have no idea. The Lord gave the illustration of a mother who has "authority" to feed the little ones with milk, and that was enough to stop me wondering too much about how it "fits" with Scripture, (which I did when the call first came).

Blessings

jeannette

 2007/6/6 8:25









 Re:

Quote:
Get over the Joyce Meyer thing!!!



...uhmm... well... you keep bringing her up. I'm only responding to what you write. :-) I've never mentioned her when you havent.

Krispy

 2007/6/6 8:37









 Re: Hyaenas!

I was watching a wildlife programme about hyaenas the other day, and just can't resist a Biological illustration. :-D

We have to remember that the world has changed drastically because of man's rebellion agianst God. At first, for example, animals didn't eat each other - all animals, and man of course, ate only plants.

After the Flood man (and animals) were allowed to eat meat. Perhaps because many plants were poorer in nutrition, and many kinds of plants were lost altogether; so meat eating became a necessity. (Human vegetarians have to be very careful with their diet to stay healthy, and may even need supplements).

Animal's behaviour also changed as a result of man's sin. Many animals became aggressive towards each other and towards us.

Hyaenas are a prime example, not only of animal meat eating and aggressiveness, but perhaps of role reversal between male and female.

Which is the relevance to this thread!

Female hyaenas (the spotted species) are born with an abnormally high level of male hormone (testosterone - even females have to have a small amount). This makes them very aggressive and dominant. In fact they bully the poor males from birth, and even have male-seeming physical characteristics, because of all the extra hormones. A side effect is that giving birth is difficult, even dangerous for a hyaena, and some suffer serious injuries or even die.

While some creatures (eg many birds of prey) also have females that are bigger and stronger than males, in hyaenas it causes problems for the animals. To me it suggests that there is something wrong; that it has to be a result of the Fall.

I hope you can see the analogy with humans here.

Physically women are on average smaller and more lightly built than men. At puberty, the higher testosterone levels actually make a boy's muscles stronger, weight for weight, than a girl's Emotionally women also tend to be more vulnerable in some ways. Men tend to be more assertive and decisive (that is no excuse for being domineering!). Many men are therefore better fitted for leadership roles than most women.

There are exceptions, on both sides, but that in general is how it should be. Even allowing for the effects of the Fall, that is how God made us.

But should we therefore make it a rigid, law, set in stone? Or did even Paul intend it to be an unbreakable law (in a society where only boys normally attended the synagogue school and could read the Scriptures) that women should not teach? I doubt it. The key is the question of usurping authority, not in whether women have the ability, or right, to teach.

In Him

Jeannette

 2007/6/6 9:13









 Re:

Quote:
It's also ironic that Elizbeth Elliot has written many books that have blessed the body of Christ, and I'm sure many MEN have read her material and learned a thing or two. I guess that makes her disobedient as well, or at least contradicting herself.



Boy, do you even read the posts here? Your comparing apples to oranges. Elizabeth Elliot is NOT a pastor, and in fact agrees that women should NOT be pastors. She does not teach men in a church setting.

If she writes a book and a man reads it she is not usurping his authority... he made the decision to read it.

Quote:
Krispy, as far as using church history as a source, yes, it is a more than valid point, if the fruit and doctrine of the people are good examples and don't contradict Scripture. And the ones cited don't. Catherine Booth? What do you have to say against her? I'm sure her husband, William under whose authority she was, would have a thing or two to say to you.



First off, I dont have anything to say [i]against[/i] anyone. I dont know enough about Catherine Booth to comment, but if I am not mistaken, wasnt she more of an evangelist? There is a difference between an evangelist and a pastor/elder. Perhaps you might want to do a study on that.

As for William Booth having a "thing or two" to say to me... My final authority is the Bible, not William Booth. And I doubt that he and I are that far apart on this.

I think that the main issue here is you are so busy being offended that you are not actually taking the time to understand what it is that we are all saying here.

I'm not agaisnt women teaching if it's in the proper context. Women can not teach men in the church setting as one who has authority. In the church she can teach other women, especially older women teaching younger women. A woman can also teach children. They can also be deacons, which by definition means laborer... this is open to both men and women. This would be things like cleaning, mowing, landscaping, whatever needs to be done to assist in the operation of the church.

A deacon is not an elder. These two terms have been meshed together today, and thats wrong. In many Baptist churches they have deacons, but they are actually acting as elders. This is how many people view a deacon, and this is where the confusion comes in about women acting as elder, but calling them deacons. Women can not be elders, and they can not be pastors according to scripture.

Quote:
It's just sad to me, the lack of understanding and humility over this issue.



Ditto... especially when Paul couldnt have stated the Lord's position on this any clearer.

Be careful brother, lest you find yourself "kicking against the pricks", as it were.

Krispy


 2007/6/6 9:26









 Re:

Quote:

GrannieAnnie wrote:

I only would like to say, since wallpaper mentioned Elizabeth Elliott....

Wallpaper????? :lol:

Quote:
I know I've said it before - some issues are not worth keeping on against each other for and I consider this topic to be a minor here. No matter what - Only God's Word is Infallible.

Hope you can glean from all the good on this site and from these folks here.

Blessed Day!
Annie

Amen sis Annie!

Blessings

jeannette

 2007/6/6 9:31









 Re: male and female; no difference in Christ?

Quote:

LittleGift wrote:

I used to preach of course, but any authority wasn't mine but the authority of the Word itself, as far as I was concerned.

This fits in with what was said earlier, (can't remember who, sorry) re spiritual authority in Christ.

When ANY teacher starts acting as if they are greater than the Word they preach, there are problems!

[i]OR[/i] when women think that their gift (of teaching or whatever) makes them superior to the men in the church, or that they can "rule the roost" because of it!

Michael was barren because she despised her husband, king David! And she didn't even do any teaching!

My thread on "Binocular Vision" may be relevant here. Physical and spiritual dimensions and truths are different. Spiritual, (and eternal) truths, such as there is no male or female in Christ, says [i]nothing at all[/i] about the practical, here-and-now question of whether a woman should teach or not!

Blessings

Jeannette

 2007/6/6 9:59





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