SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
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 )

Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3708


Lets start believing and putting these scriptures to use in the Power of Christ and the Holy Spirit unto the Gospel of Christ.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Act 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Rom 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

1Cr 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

2Cr 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Gal 6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen. [[[To [the] Galatians written from Rome.]]]

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Phl 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

Phl 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Phl 2:1 If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2Ti 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ [be] with thy spirit. Grace [be] with you. Amen. [[[The second [epistle] unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.]]]

Phm 1:25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen. [[[Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.]]]

Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy [are ye]; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Notice the word (is) come, not has come.
Is He come in our flesh, The Word says Yes.


Psa 143:11 Quicken me, O LORD, for thy name's sake: for thy righteousness' sake bring my soul out of trouble.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

In Christ: Phillip


 2007/6/23 1:09Profile

 Re: Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?

Hi Mike,

'God's High Calling for Women' by John MacArthur was interesting for me, as I'd been wondering whast 'shamefastness' meant, which I'd come across in Tyndale. I think this attitude was expounded to me as scriptural, (without the word), waaaaay back when I began attending house fellowships. The thought was that one did not actually have to wear [i]grey[/i] all the time, (as quakers did), but one had to have a sort of quaker attitude to clothing - little if any make-up, and maybe no perfume either.

Jewellery was not encouraged, but it was not expressly forbidden - although men were chided against it... No gold chains round the neck... (thought to be a sign of effeminacy or bondage to money).

So, if this article is a step towards you communicating what's been in your mind at the back of what you couldn't put into words, I can see that the visual things the speaker mentions are those which you could not begin to guess at for us ladies, and from the talk, one cannot tell if sisters are allowed to share 'in church'.

I noted the distinction made towards a 'worship' service - whatever that may mean - and I realise (now) that it took some people some courage to let some of the house churches in England develop the way they did (under God's hand); so that there could be a rise and fall of the different ministries within most of the gatherings, prayer only getting it's own extra weekly meeting, where there would be no sharing of the word, unless very pertinent and short.

 2007/6/23 5:11

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

 Re: A Woman Speaking Under Authority


Try reading what Edit: MacArthur(not MacDonald) wrote in those 4 sermons, and 'hear' what he says, looking for what would be offensive to a woman who has been used and abused all her life by men, who has been owned and misused, yet blamed for what 'she' does to man, because 'she' is Eve incarnate.

THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, molested, incested, raped, beaten, and verbally abused until she is a shell of what she should be, reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days to do what men will not do, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.

Please, re-read all four sermons from this viewpoint.

Then tell me if you want to know what I spent all night writing, unwriting, writing, unwriting, and trying to get the outrage out of my writing at this man's incredible conceit, poor knowledge of Greek vs. Roman cultures, ignorance of women in the bible, the original cultural context, a flat out denial of scripture he himself defines, and the lack of knowledge he has about women vs. the knowledge he has over his rights in the church.

But if you don't re-read those sermons in that light, you will never 'hear' what I have to say, because you will never 'see' it, for your ears are stopped and you are very blind.



Forrest Anderson

 2007/6/23 10:57Profile

Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3708


"""THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, molested, incested, raped, beaten, and verbally abused until she is a shell of what she should be, reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days to do what men will not do, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God"""

This reminds me of the very Person who came to save us. What do we think of the very same things that happened to Jesus. What can we feel for Him in His suffering, just to get us saved if we believe. Forrest you may think I am crazy, but I envy you in your suffering and your attendance to join in His suffering and death.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I know I could not have gone through what you have and still hold to the Christ likeness I see in you.
God has chosen those among us that emulate Christ in our suffering and our ability given to bring forth the Gospel of Christ that God Himself has identified you with. I have the same flow of Love for you as I do for our Lord Jesus Christ because of how much He loved me and gave himself for us. What a fellowship of suffering with Him that you have to give to the world. I praise God for your life and who you are in Christ. Don't let man keep you from showering on all that God sends you with this Life out of death you have been blessed with.

Praise God for your life, I pray that God send you to shout it from the roofs tops, His unending Love and procurement of our salvation by the Things Christ suffered and Identifying in your life the same suffering by men and women that Jesus Christ suffered, Preach it my Sister, I am listening and it is of great benefit and encouragement of What this Christ in us truly means. Life out of death, His Cross is truly our Cross.

Thank you and God for your life in Christ: Phillip


 2007/6/23 13:01Profile

 Re: "one-anothering"

In response to all my prayer requests at the end of pg 18, Diane wrote what I was feeling toward 'all' on this thread.

Anyhow, maybe some men have been abused by woman so much in their past also, or left by them, or whatever, or had bad experiences in Churches too, to where they are as hurt as some of us ladies are, as Forrest brought out. Many pages ago, our unity as "brethren" was being treatened and I mentioned it a few times, as did others.

I think, this 'ministering to each other' is the more important thing that we can do, because somewhere - somehow - the majority of us are hurting and actually in "the press" (not News type) right now.

Diane saw this, by this post.
By "little side trips" she meant, that when we as a Body see someone hurting and we stop to help instead of plow on, as she did for me on that page.
I believe she saw what was needed here from & 'for' most of us.
Body ministry.

Diane wrote:

Annie, I suspect that, in the end, little “side trips” like this one is all that will count. While speeding down the highway in our ardent pursuit of a golden nugget of truth (which may remain forever illusive), we can’t forget to slow down and look in the ditch - at the feeble cries of our sisters and brothers who are dealing with REAL issues of life.

As I muse back over my past 2+ years on SI, I’d say those “lesser” paths are actually THE most important aspects of our spiritual walk. God, like the policeman, waves us down, and onto the shoulder of the road - for one-anothering.

And just above this post, Philip sees it too. Bless God.

 2007/6/23 13:25

Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


Some comments about McArthur’s articles earlier posted by Mike:

They were overreacting to their suppression by seeking a dominant position.

This is an excellent point. In fact, it could be said about many of the divisiveness we see in society or church: overreaction to suppression and putdowns– leading to the pendulum swing – the formation of sides reacting against each other. (Will we ever learn??)

The women must be taught. They must be discipled. They must learn God's truth.

I give McArthur a great deal of credit for emphasizing this point!
In fact, elsewhere I have been reminded that when Paul told the women to be silent, he was essentially instructing them to hush up and LISTEN – something that they never did, and were never ALLOWED to do. Women were not even permitted to hear the Torah being read. So women did their own thing in their own little corner: chat. Paul’s directives were significantly countercultural and progressive!

I am at one with McArthur on this point. My deepest concern regarding modern Christianity is the LACK of learning in our churches. We need to refocus on the need to LEARN, LEARN, LEARN the TRUTHS. Oh, if we could only give up our preoccupation about roles (a highly cultural obsession) and focus on the LEARNING, we’d have much stronger churches, not tossing about like waves in the wind! In fact, most of our churches are bypassing the learning stage and putting people in teaching positions who have not LEARNED. And these are teaching our most impressionable age groups: the children.

A woman could take a Nazarite vow just as a man could.

This comment made me laugh (delightfully). Much earlier in the thread I had alluded to the idea that Scripture was essentially written for men by men. I drew that observation from a conservative Lutheran scholar, who from his writings, gave the impression that he knew every jot and tittle in the Bible, and every Hebrew/Greek word. He seemed somewhat like a Bible genius to me. Yet, somehow in his article about the Bible and gender, he managed to overlook all the references to females that McArthur brought forth. How’s that??? (Guess what his position was!)

McArthur is a complementation: Equal in value, but different in roles. But, as I think about it, it is all sounding mighty close to the ongoing issue over Jew/vs Gentile: Equal and one under the covenant, but diverse in role (end time’s, I assume).

I am edgy about any explanation that has the potential to lose sight of the oneness, and rebuilt the wall. And that’s where the church keeps on finding itself when it tries to distinguish roles - and ESPECIALLY when it tries to fit gender roles into our already faulty foundation on which we have built our religious structure: FORM and PLACE.
McArthur alludes to form and place:
“in the right format”

The quagmire will not be cleared up as long as we humans insist on running “church” with the model and philosophy that all too-closely resembles the Catholicism that we Protestants attempted to break free from in the Reformation.

I hate to say it, but I doubt that we’re going to find a neat and tidy “employment contract” when it comes to gender roles and the church.

McArthur tries, though. After taking us through some rather quagmire-ish exegesis of the NT references, he comes up with a very tidy answer:
"It is indecent for women to speak in the church." It's not indecent for women to speak, you can speak all you want...unless you're usurping the role of authority, unless you're taking leadership in the church. This is so clear. So, what are we saying then? When it comes to the meeting of the church together, women are not to preach or teach, they are not to speak forth the Word of God and they are not to speak in ecstatic speech. Obviously, the sum of those things is to say that the church when it comes together is to be spoken to by men. That's just God's way.

McArthur’s neat compartments would fit in with modern Western religious practise: women can’t preach in the “meeting of the church together” but they can at a prayer meeting. That begs the question: was there a difference in the NT between the two. Even today in Russia, what we would call “church” they call houses of prayer.
I am concerned whenever I see the evidence of religious hierarchal distinctions – not only in roles, but also related to the function of community. What about “where two or three come together”? Just where do you draw the line between church church and non-church church.

What’s wrong with simply trusting that believers are one in Christ, under the Holy Spirit? I suspect that it’s because, generally speaking the church hasn’t been able to trust the Spirit. Remember, we’ve been dominated by the cessationists for some many years. And when you remove the role of the Spirit of the church, you have no other choice but to run it yourself – using your conclusions.

We’re just going to dig our selves a deeper and deeper pit that basically stalls us, if not sucks us right under. Meanwhile, as my husband has pointed out: God took care of the women who weren’t given their place in the western church: He sent them to Africa; they formed Women’s Missionary Societies” etc. Of course in earlier days, that did not threaten the prevailing male dominance in the North American Church. Also, the blacks were considered an inferior species anyway.
I do not think these points would be the reason McArthur would accept women preaching on the mission field because he says:
When can women proclaim the Word of God?

At any time and at any place, except when the church comes together for the worship service

McArthur attempts to prove his point by drawing from OT references: no female kings and priests, and manages to dismiss any of the female references to leaders/prophets/judge. Of course, there are those who would challenge his rational. Regardless, what amazes me is how he fails to draw from the vast historical evidence of anointed female leaders – both past and present.

You just can’t get away from one fact: God is building his church, and he is working where he wants and through whom he wants. Meanwhile, our old wineskins just keep on bursting.



 2007/6/23 14:45Profile

Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


EDIT: ( comment deleted as I don't think I know what I'm talking about regarding the point)

Ron Bailey said, “Christians do not aim for equality”. (something like that)

We can apply that to gender too:

We consider others better than ourselves.
We assume a submissive stance in all relationships.



 2007/6/23 14:57Profile

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

 Re: Restoring beauty, power, understanding

[url=]God's High Calling for Women Part 2[/url]
All, yet particular emphasis midway down to the end.

We must get this right, it is imperative. There are things being disputed elsewhere also out of spiritual order, some that are quite revolting, speculative. An emphasis on the aberrations and 'exceptions', worldly leaven of psychology, pragmatism, 'what if' scenarios. Divorce, remarriage, abortion. Reactions and defending. Gender bending. Accusations and one up man-ship. Some of it subtle, some overt, some appalling.

The beauty and power the very 'High Calling' is demonstrating itself, manifesting itself to be something other than that. A different tactic is needed, one that extricates out the personal aspects to the point where even this writer is lost and overwhelmed by the subject matter. I wish no longer to be addressed at all, too much already that is woeful and misconstrued, misunderstood. Would to God Himself that hardly is this to be a turning tail on the sisters after so long a record of being their very supporters in spiritual matters, in true friendship and honor.

For all this there has been this unspoken element that dares not to address that which needs addressing. It has been going on subtly for quite sometime, it has the markings of a 'taking over mentality' recognized or not and to bring it out in the open is to bring also the very element of hostility, reaction and defending that is being shown through these very pages. It has far reaching attributes that penetrate both genders as to their roles and to both in their assertiveness overstepping boundaries that are first and foremost spiritual as they are practical. It is the flesh in accession and the true power of obedience and submission, of real humility and honor, nobility being expensed by outbursts of emotion and insinuations. It has more of an accusatory, defamatory bent than a decided desire that Gods will is of the utmost importance.

If all that is too vague it is meant to be so, far better to put the distance in place and get past the surface level to core elements [i]that the word of God be not blasphemed.[/i]

It is as much to indict all where it warrants it for our rebellion against the Holy Spirit by thwarting our placement [i]under[/i] authority. There is a breach and an error and the error is the issue far more and far prior to extenuating circumstances. It is abuse and usurping that is the root of the error, it is the things disclosed that are telling and the symptoms by defending that there is an illness in need of restoration to health.

There is something creeping in that would have us shying away from confrontation of error because we have so little spiritual fortitude and such a penchant for pampering opinion, guarding a suffering of that opinion to the test and principles, fixed mandates of spiritual truths tried and tested and brought to facts of scripture.

We must face them as they are and let the whimpering die right out of us. There is a silence in speaking and speaking in silence that is not so abstract as it seems. The Lord Himself leaving much in parable, in readdressing question with question itself and at other times with the silence that over stress the point, not an audible sound to be heard but a penetrating stab into the marrow and sinews of the soul. How is that and how is it that we can be so dull of this spiritual hearing?

If anything it is to restore that which this present world and this modern day Christendom has so devalued by the paradox of it's natural thinking that it knows better how to construct Gods business by way of thwarting His order, placing men in womans roles and men in the womens that has far reaching consequences and has destroyed that which it thought would further.

We now have effeminate men and masculine women, the great convulsion that is being manifested in the blurring of substance. What might all be said to the uprise of homosexuality in this hour? What is it that gave place for this to become "acceptable" behavior? Is it not the destruction and devaluing [i]first[/i] of these roles, of the family as a spiritual unity, the pushed envelope of 50\50 divorce with even the edge possibly on the side of ... "Christan's"?

Certainly this is all not some foreign matter even in biblical times. Homosexuality is notated in scripture as is divorce and all the associated items. Cult's and pagan worship, Roman avenues of prostitution, maybe even worse forms and outbreaks if one is to consider those of Nero and most of the emperors, a further blurring of the lines bisexually in dominance and submission, slaves and pedophilia. As repulsive as it all is and to even make mention of the facts and history, the contaminant by even association of reading ... The rather difficult thing to say is that even in the perverted ideal of the day the genders of masculinity and femininity were still thought to be held to by and large. Lesbianism held to be utterly atrocious. Not so any longer. To addendum all this a moment, it is not all so cut and dried in such a short comment. If one has the stomach for it; [url=]A Comparison Between the Roman and Modern Views of Homosexuality[/url]

The 'not so any longer' aspect is that while largely thwarted by the in rush of Christianity in that day, this day has it all inverted and the so called 'community' has burst-ed the bounds of gender bending, broken it as to be indistinguishable.

The ramifications go much further. The media. Pornography. This is now way past the ideals of just mere loose morals and abuse of Puritan or Puritanical thought. Because the church thought it best and better to [i]allow[/i] principles and spiritual understanding, headship and order to be updated and recalculated, redefined, it now has a monstrosity on it's hands and has chosen by and large to defeat it with niceties and contorted that which is seen in it's easy belieivism and fractured attributes. That would have the Lord himself as passive, 'loving' and not offending anybody. In other words because tolerance and not truth is the high ideal a call to principle and first inceptions, expectations of even genders is now up for the same envelope stretching that always goes on when a standard is not raised up against it and a halt called to stop it's continuance.

There is a direct trace back-wards to this even in what Paul was advocating in the seemingly 'controversial' aspects of what was an allowance assimilated and usurped, thwarted by his mandate as it was a mandate not a suggestion. He had both the authority and courage to damn up that which would have destroyed the church while in it's very earliest stages. Following his progression and journeys he was often coming back around to check on conditions, on the welfare of the churches that were planted. His admonishens were often those of correction. To do so now, even the weakest of us having just an observation of it all is to bring smite and reproach for attempting the effort. But hardly is it some personal effrontery, I frankly couldn't care less of insult or injury, hence the distancing of concern of personal opinion as such.

Confusing as this next will be in seemingly contradiction, bluntly, we here in the USA are on the verge of the next real possibility of having a greater moral dilemma on our hands. I despise politics for their shamefaced, dishonest and rhetorical absurdities. Integrity is found wanting, character is a subset if at all a real true consideration in far too many instances. Shot through with compromise and the ultimate form of pragmatism and humanism, it's muddy, confused, largely without honor, God fearing in the minority. Whatever the parties, whatever the again blurring of the lines, straddling the truth, toying with it and outright lying directly against it. Be that as it may, still it has it's constituent's that would be accurately described as liberal more over in it's ideology, form and function. To cut to the chase here if this country elects it's first women President in Hilary Clinton I fear for it's continuance as a nation.

This would put the crowning glory of the feminist movement on display and give her it's own Queen. Not only would it be a great usurping of authority in role as 'leader' of this nation but a furthering of the erosion that is ready to break the shaky damn that is fast loosing it's cohesiveness to hold back the break.

It is and is not the fact that she is a woman that is the issue. Paradox again? It is in that it is out of order, out of Gods order and let me insert perhaps the greatest bemusement of all here; Why is there not an honesty that even the conscience would speak to knowing things ought not to be done? That these women in positions not granted naturally are now partaking in, ruling in and abusing just by their accepting of them? I find it all too incredulous and the exceptional arguments very weak in finding support no matter how tortured the logic, rhetoric and for the saint the scriptures themselves. Dominion was given to man as in male and the disagreements can go on until the cows come home but it is there, it is by direct ascription of God Himself. My opinion and yours be damned, it is not for us to make light of it, thwart it, side step it or explain it away by aberration. It is not ability, personal effrontery, ill spiritedness or any other quality as it is that error and agenda that would be brought to bear by the ideology behind it.

We, as Christians can confuse the issue of One Spirit by which we are all made partakers and that is all that it will remain, confusion. Roles are an entirely different matter and we must once again face it in it's fullest brutality against the worlds philosophy that has us so warped and caught up in it's mentality that it is now painful to extract out of it.

A recent example of just where we are in this muddiness was hearing of the "Rev. Ann Holmes Redding" an Episcopal priest now embracing Islam [i]simultaneously[/i];

Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.

[url=]"I am both Muslim and Christian" [/url]

What was more alarming was not the later as bizarre as it all sounds but the former contradiction in terms. Moreover, how absurd to at once usurp and submit seamlessly! It is all sheer insanity. How is it that the Muslims can almost get it more correct than we? Certainly it is convoluted out of proper bounds in demeaning ways but [i]structurally[/i], in matter of order they understand that which we rebel against.

All these things, do they not point directly back to first principles? [i]... and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.[/i]

Interesting is it that for the man to admit his constant shortcomings and failures is of a demanding sort whereas the woman is often to be defended or is defending. We want equality only where it suits us and overlook how tremendous the spirit of disobedience really is across the whole of spiritual unity ascribed to in Galatians.

What is the leading cause of divorce? Is it not selfishness? And how has the church contributed to this more so that an appealing to so called 'rights'? What is the prosperity goppish and WOF camps perpetuating more of than anything a sense of entitlement and covert covetousness. I don't get my way and I am ready to bail on the whole thing. I am [i]owed[/i] something, some person to my rights and dictates and demands. This is the perversion of and abuse of authority, presumed at that which would add so much fodder to those screaming for even more 'rights' as woman and justification of lording over by men. It is all rebellion in the most real sense.

That is why none of this pertains to that which has to do with ability or present circumstances, intellectual capabilities or even in duties of day to day activities. If the truly married haven't figured out that this is a mutual sacrifice and a real effort in dying to one's self, giving place to the other and understanding their God given roles the expectation ought to be one where marriage is no longer anything but a caricature of it's self, a form without any substance. How does this perfectly assimilate across those things not to do with marriage per se but for all saints? Taking up ones cross is what? What main meaning can it have other than to submit to [i]it's[/i] authority in the life of the believer. It is to give place to an alternative which is self rule and accept that which is higher and more glorious still.

Suffering has gotten a bad rap even with all the sweet sentimental ascriptions attributed to it. It is embraced reluctantly and earmarked as unnecessary, even ignoble. Hardly is it spoken of in these ways, that would dislodge us as being to honest. It dawned on me yesterday musing that the martyrs that burned at the stake actually, physically [i]burned[/i]. How outlandish and silly to say so! The point being that we cannot stand still long enough to even observe or imagine the totality of such an incredible thing. While they are yet burning we would turn our faces away from the heat as too uncomfortable and the ghastly horror of it all as too unbearable to dwell long on. Is this not part and parcel of our shallow fortitude in spiritual matters, a too quick turning away? Something of even this magnitude of role reversal and gender bending unable to be submitted to correctly, spiritually, the derivatives that are brought out in reactionary impulse, could they alone survive the burning?

There is great, high power and spiritual attributes in all this especially for women. You do not even understand many of you what sway over the hearts of man that are at your disposal, some do and abuse it in a variety of ways. Abusing authority is certainly not one of them. It is understood at primitive levels that need not be taught but are understood instinctively, pagan or saint. The very repulsion that man will have against this is normative and only borders or divulges into sin when it is turned into vice or scorn and mans own boundaries thwarted in opposition. For the saint it is different in manifold ways but not to an affection of effeminate qualities that displace himself from his own mandates and procurements.

Our own brother here had the courage to note his appreciation for the female form as fact. Beauty is enough to kill a man inwardly in ways hard to describe but surely not completely foreign to women who know how to so situate themselves in their way as to punish us all. There is every natural, normative reason for this and it is to marvel and not to lust that will cause the Christan man anguish forever. Recall Billy Graham being asked what he does when he sees a beautiful women and his reply was almost incredulous; "What do you think I do? I am a red blooded American." A bit of a paraphrase and certainly he didn't have in mind lust but made the grand point that just because we men be Christians we have somehow plucked out our eyes and splayed our affections. Yes, men are and can be pigs of the most deplorable sort. I worked with them, had friends of this attitude and likely picked up much by way of association with them in heathen days. Despite all that and as a cover of being one of the boy's underneath it all was a great appreciation and respect, even awe that God could create such a thing. Those that were girlfriends and they were few were given all of my heart in all of my sincerity, all of the love possible, to this day those have still the chunks of the heart sacrificed to them if you follow the analogies.

To divulge all this again is to only further a right understanding of getting back to first principles of order well before conduct, of spiritual understanding and authority, of restoring nobility and honor to the roles that are uniquely womens, the attributes expressed in Titus,

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

These are the very Godly attributes that are desirable. The true Christian man desires a true Christian woman and I believe the world desires them more than they know or would admit to, surely it needs them.

Lest this lose all of it's sting will backtrack to something again at last, earlier referenced in Genesis;

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [i]shall be[/i] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

[i]The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. “Desire” does not refer to sexual desire in particular. Gen_4:7. It means, in general, “turn,” determination of the will. “The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee.” The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.[/i]

Albert Barnes

This needs it's own airing in total, very explanatory prior to this one point. What has long been a sort of suspicion is just this, that the ideal is in the 'turning', the determination
one of [i]force[/i] not of naturalness. In other words not that she would [i]willing[/i] do so or have a natural response to do so as much as a forcing or submitting to the very thing she would rebel against. No different than the mans rebelling to his Head, this is where the admonishen in Ephesians makes perfect sense;

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Just as well the backtracking just before the great controversial verse;

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Bringing right back into this even out of order (sequentially);

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Eph 5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

[i]That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.[/i] Eph 5:26,27

[i]So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:32 [b]This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church[/b].

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.[/i] Eph 5:28-33

Now is it easier to consider all this, all these things in light of the verses?

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are [i]commanded[/i] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

[i]For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.[/i] 1Co 14:33

Have read a lot of commentary and a great deal of it seems to fall short especially of a contemporary sort. It can go to great lengths explaining the culture of the day, some even to oddly denounce exegesis and then turn around to do much the same, reading things supposed into it to try and explain it all. The one large factor and the one real searching I did go after was the very appealing to 1Ti 2:13,14 [i]For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.[/i] And it was conspicuous by it's absence, it's slighting and gleaning past.

Thankfully, John MacArthur did a fantastic job here, rightly dividing the truth.

Mike Balog

 2007/6/23 15:59Profile

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

 Re: Who?

Then tell me if you want to know what I spent all night writing, unwriting, writing, unwriting, and trying to get the outrage out of my writing at this man's incredible conceit, poor knowledge of Greek vs. Roman cultures, ignorance of women in the bible, the original cultural context, a flat out denial of scripture he himself defines, and the lack of knowledge he has about women vs. the knowledge he has over his rights in the church.

Try reading what MacDonald wrote in those 4 sermons

Do you mean John MacArthur?

THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, molested, incested, raped, beaten, and verbally abused until she is a shell of what she should be, reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days to do what men will not do, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.

Please, re-read all four sermons from this viewpoint.

Why would I want to do that? I could read anything from a variety of viewpoint and come up with much the same thing, pouring either my own or a perceived experience into the text that would color everything by it and apparently as you have done so here. Otherwise you would not be 'hearing' the things that you think you are hearing.
forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.

That is not the issue nor is it inferred to be one unless you are indeed referring to a MacDonald that did so elsewhere. Why must this be made the entirety of everything, the whole baby with the bathwater approach? If you are indeed attributing all this wrongly to John MacArthur [i]incredible conceit, poor knowledge of Greek vs. Roman cultures, ignorance of women in the bible, the original cultural context, a flat out denial of scripture he himself defines, and the lack of knowledge he has about women vs. the knowledge he has over his rights in the church[/i] that would be very poor indeed.

Mike Balog

 2007/6/23 16:46Profile



wallbuilder wrote:
Phillip I really appreciate your wisdom and tact and knowledge of this whole topic. I agree with you when you wrote:

"I see no reason that woman can not teach a man as long as her head is covered, with the intention of not lording it over the man." (not quite sure how to do the quote thing here)

This follows the principle of the text in I Timothy 2:12 (I do not permit a women to teach or have authority over a man) that still applies today.

1. Paul's reason for writing this text:

The women in the Ephesian church were being led astray by a cult that said that women were dominant and they worshiped a goddess. They were trying to "usurp" the authority of the men and aggressively dominate them.

2. Paul also very clearly allowed and endorsed women in leadership (Ro. 16) in the church and acknowledged that women prayed and prophecied out loud in church (I Cor.) So this excludes the thought that women must be entirely silent in church. The text in I Timothy 2 says that "women much learn in quietness and submission". The reason for this is that the women were disrupting the worship service and trying to take it over, and they were in error in their beliefs from this cult. So Paul instructed them to learn instead of speak out loud the wrong things they were saying.

2. Priscilla and Aquila both taught Apollos. Incidently Priscilla is listed first whenever the two are mentioned. So Paul cannot mean that all women everywhere in every setting cannot teach men. The two of them had a church that met in their home.

3. Deborah lead or judged the nation of Israel. That meant that both men and women came to her for leadership and guidance. God raised her up in response to the Isrealites crying out in their bondage. God raised up a woman.

My conclusion as well as maannnnnnny others in the church is that in I Timothy Paul was addressing a specific situation that cannot be applied universally to all women at all times in every setting. But rather there is a principle that still applies today. And that principle is divine order as in creation.

*****My biggest point to say is, Dont assume that just because a woman is in a pulpit she is trying to usurp the male authority in that setting. The women in Ephesus were, and Eve was because they were both going against the command of God. There have been and are many women that were/are under male authority and not only endorsed by the men but needed and encouraged to operate in their divine calling. And they are leading men and women closer to Christ from what they teach. They are not in error, they are in obedience to God's Word. They are submitted to male authority and operating in their callings.

I believe you can do both. And so do countless believers in the body of Christ. To assume a woman is in rebellion just because she is preaching/teaching a mixed audience is doing a discredit to Paul's ministry and his own endorsement of women following Chirst. It's all about perspective.

So the question to ask, to me is, "what is the intent of this women speaking in this setting? Is she teaching falsities, and trying to mislead others away from God and his commands? If not then let God use her for his glory.

Peace in Christ

I Like the way you have expressed these thoughts, Wallbuilder, thank you.

I shall never forget an intercessors' day of prayer I attended. There were three speakers, two men and a woman. The woman was tall, and was one of the best Bible teachers I've heard. She also had great "platform presence". She was much taller than one of the men, who was small and wiry, though he was her equal in gifting when he spoke.

The other man, though the leader, and very knowledgable, was less lively and gripping in his style of speaking, compared to the others.

Yet when the lady spoke, (she did cover her head also) she somehow managed to teach without either usurping the authority of the men, or stifling her own gift.

How she managed it I have no idea, but she did!

And Christ was exalted through all three of them!

I'm not saying this to "prove" any point of doctrine, just to give a practical example of how things can be when there is indeed "divine order" in a meeting.



 2007/6/23 17:19

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy