Women in Leadership Positions in the Church

[public hermit]

He did know, but he didn't want to lose Eve, they were two-in-one-flesh.

That's not just terminology in a perfect sinless world.

Eve is the one who put him in the horrible spot of having to choose between two institutions from God, his comand and his wife . . .because she was deceived, or she would not have done that to him.

So the one who knew from the beginning chooses otherwise, apparently not deceived but acting in full knowledge of the repercussions, but somehow is magically trustworthy where the woman isn't? It doesn't work. If she is gullible and able to be deceived that's rough, but he knowingly and willingly rejects the truth. His hamartia is worse than hers. She missed the mark. He shot where he wanted. The argument doesn't work.

Paul is reaching, which is human. We all do it. Paul is not God.

 

[Clare73]

I'm open to understanding how his argument does work, assuming that it does. I assume you think it does. Why do you think it's convincing?

I dunno'. .polygamy seemed to work millennia ago. . .still does for some undergound Mormons. . .it matters not whether the born again is convinced that monogamy is best. . .it is commanded by the God he serves.

By the way, if you respond that it works because it's God's word,
I'll take that as a tacit confession that you don't know.

And the problem for the born again son of God with that is?

 

[Clare73]

So the one who knew from the beginning chooses otherwise, apparently not deceived but acting in full knowledge of the repercussions, but somehow is magically trustworthy where the woman isn't? It doesn't work. If she is gullible and able to be deceived that's rough, but he knowingly and willingly rejects the truth. His hamartia is worse than hers. She missed the mark. He shot where he wanted. The argument doesn't work.

Paul is reaching, which is human. We all do it. Paul is not God

Agreed. . .he only received his teaching from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven
(2 Corinthians 12:1-5).
Where did you receive yours?

Do you have an authority for the truth of God other than your flawed human reasoning and sentiment?

 

[topher694]

Do you have an authority for the truth of God other than your flawed human reasoning and sentiment?

That door swings two ways.

 

[public hermit]

Agreed. . .he only received his teaching from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven
(2 Corinthians 12:1-5).
Where did you receive yours?

Do you have an authority for the truth of God other than your flawed human reasoning and sentiment?

That wasn't a slam on Paul, or even a chink in his apostolic credentials. He was human writing letters to other humans, all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. When he speaks the gospel he was sent to proclaim, he could not go wrong. But he was human writing human letters to other humans, and subject to error as all humans are. It's a bad argument That does not diminish the gospel in any way...unless you think everything Paul said must be without error, then you have to navigate non-existent hurdles. I'll just use good reason.

 

[Clare73]

That wasn't a slam on Paul, or even a chink in his apostolic credentials. He was human writing letters to other humans, all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. When he speaks the gospel he was sent to proclaim, he could not go wrong.

But when he was teaching the church, his understanding was not from Christ, and he had no apostolic authority (although he vigorously states that he did), he was just another old geezer like all the old geezers, he tied his cincture around his waist and not his knees?

But he was human writing human letters to other humans, and subject to error as all humans are. It's a bad argument That does not diminish the gospel in any way...unless you think everything Paul said must be without error, then you have to navigate non-existent hurdles. I'll just use good reason.

What hurdles do you see?

So "All Scripture is God-breathed" is not true? (2 Timothy 3:16)

 

[public hermit]

But when he was teaching the church, his understanding was not from Christ, and he had no apostolic authority (although he vigorously states that he did) he was just another old geezer like all the old geezers, he tied his cincture around his waist and not his knees?

Think about it. Sometimes Paul will give guidance and qualify it by saying, "I, not the Lord, say..." (1 Cor. 7:12). Are we too assume he always made that qualification when it was needed? Only one time he gave guidance as a qualified, but fallible, human and not as one bearing the word of the Lord, i.e. gospel? Let's accept his proclamation of Christ with trusting hearts, and put his household commands, which might or might not have come from the Lord, to the test.

We have been given the Spirit and the gospel. Paul is also held to that standard.

I say, we have placed a weight on Paul he had no idea he was carrying. He was willing to die for the gospel, and we want his flesh to be infallible.

 

[Paidiske]

Anyway, its not that hard to find in the OT that women should be in submission to men, its in Genesis.

No. Genesis describes male domination of women as a result of the fall, an outworking of our sin, not something that God created as good.

All Scripture is God breathed, and that includes the bits that name a woman an apostle, a deacon, and leaders of house churches; the bits that describe women as leaders, teachers, and prophets; and the bits that describe the gifts of the Spirit for the building up of the Church as being given equally to men and women. Just for starters.

 

[topher694]

No. Genesis describes male domination of women as a result of the fall, an outworking of our sin, not something that God created as good.

All Scripture is God breathed, and that includes the bits that name a woman an apostle, a deacon, and leaders of house churches; the bits that describe women as leaders, teachers, and prophets; and the bits that describe the gifts of the Spirit for the building up of the Church as being given equally to men and women. Just for starters.

Exactly, God essentially predicted that men by in large would get this wrong, and guess what? They did, and still do. The "women can't be pastors" crowd are actually fulfilling scripture, just not in the way they think.

 

[Clare73]

Think about it. Sometimes Paul will give guidance and qualify it by saying, "I, not the Lord, say..." (1 Cor. 7:12). Are we too assume he always made that qualification when it was needed?

Absolutely!

You'll have a hard time convincing me that someone who not only knew the mind of Christ so well, but had been in the third heaven--do you know what that is? that's where Christ is seated now at the right hand of God--was not in a position to make absolutely the right call on the new Christian being already married to the non-Christian.

Only one time he gave guidance as a qualified, but fallible, human and not as one bearing the word of the Lord, i.e. gospel?

You, IMO, fail to apprehend the spiritual magnitude of that to which Paul was admitted--so great that he had to be physically humbled for the rest of his life to protect him from human fallibility.
The apostle entrusted with revelation of the divine wisdom found in Romans, Ephesians, Colossians not being in a position to authoritatively make the right call on a new Christian already in a marriage to a non-Christian? . . .Absurd!

Let's accept his proclamation of Christ with trusting hearts, and put his household commands, which might or might not have come from the Lord, to the test.

You think his commands for the Christian life in living out the gospel are not a part of the gospel itself?

The only test you have is the same one the Bereans used, the word of God written.
What is the territory where we are allowed to disagree with the authoritative apostolic teaching of Paul based on the word of God written?

We have been given the Spirit and the gospel. Paul is also held to that standard.

What standard. . .one that excludes the teaching he received in the third heaven?

I say, we have placed a weight on Paul he had no idea he was carrying. He was willing to die for the gospel, and we want his flesh to be infallible.

So, Paul who had the same Holy Spirit all the born again have, with a trip to the third heaven and "surpassingly great revelations" thrown in just for lagniappe, had "no idea of the weight he was carrying"?

I say, could it be you that has no idea of the apostolic authority Paul was given?

"The weapons we fight with. . .have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ," (the center of man's being becoming fully subject to the lordship of Christ)--2 Corinthians 10:4-5.

 

[public hermit]

Absolutely!

You'll have a hard time convincing me that someone who not only knew the mind of Christ so well, but had been in the third heaven--do you know what that is? that's where Christ is seated now at the right hand of God--was not in a position to make absolutely the right call on the new Christian being already married to the non-Christian.

You, IMO, fail to apprehend the spiritual magnitude of that to which Paul was admitted--so great that he had to be physically humbled for the rest of his life to protect him from human fallibility.
The apostle entrusted with revelation of the divine wisdom found in Romans, Ephesians, Colossians not being in a position to authoritatively make the right call on a new Christian already in a marriage to a non-Christian? . . .Absurd!
You think his commands for the Christian life of living out the gospel are not a part of the gospel itself?

The only test you have is the same one the Bereans used, the word of God written.
What is the territory where we are allowed to disagree with the authoritative apostolic teaching of Paul?

What standard. . .one that excludes the teaching he received in the third heaven?
So, Paul who had the same Holy Spirit all the born again have, with a trip to the third heaven and "surpassingly great revelations" thrown in just for lagniappe, had "no idea of the weight he was carrying"?

I say, could it be you that has no idea of the apostolic authority Paul was given?

"The weapons we fight with. . .have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up abonst the knowldge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ," (the center of man's being becoming fully subject to the lordship of Christ)--2 Corinthians 10:4-5.

Well, I just have to disagree. If you feel his every word, of the letters we have, must be taken as gospel truth I respect that, even if I don't think it's necessarily or helpful. Still, it's a bad argument.

 

[zippy2006]

Think about it. Sometimes Paul will give guidance and qualify it by saying, "I, not the Lord, say..." (1 Cor. 7:12). Are we too assume he always made that qualification when it was needed? Only one time he gave guidance as a qualified, but fallible, human and not as one bearing the word of the Lord, i.e. gospel? Let's accept his proclamation of Christ with trusting hearts, and put his household commands, which might or might not have come from the Lord, to the test.

How do you circumvent the fact that Paul said his teaching on women is a "Command of the Lord," and that "Those who do not recognize the teaching are not recognized?" (link)

 

[Clare73]

Well, I just have to disagree. If you feel his every word, of the letters we have, must be taken as gospel truth I respect that, even if I don't think it's necessarily or helpful. Still, it's a bad argument.

Paul's or mine?

I know you understand that my faith is not based on "good argument," but on much higher authority and infallibility than human argument.

And we're still brothers in Christ anyway.

 

[public hermit]

How do you circumvent the fact that Paul said his teaching on women is a "Command of the Lord," and that "Those who do not recognize the teaching are not recognized?" (link)

It's an interpolation. Read 1 Cor. 14: 26-40. Then read it again, skipping vss. 33b-36. It reads, flows smoothly w/o the interpolation. He is speaking about prophecy, then he says this completely random thing about women, and then right back to prophecy? It is so random and out of place. No, someone took advantage of the command statement in vs. 37, and interpolated a statement on women. It is so obvious and has been noticed for a long time now.

 

[zippy2006]

It's an interpolation. Read 1 Cor. 14: 26-40. Then read it again, skipping vss. 33b-36. It reads, flows smoothly w/o the interpolation. He is speaking about prophecy, then he says this completely random thing about women, and then right back to prophecy? It is so random and out of place. No, someone took advantage of the command statement in vs. 37, and interpolated a statement on women. It is so obvious and has been noticed for a long time now.

Oh dear. Now that is a bad argument. Vv. 37-38 certainly apply to vv. 26-33, but they apply a fortiori to vv. 34-36. This is eisegesis on the most bald level, re-arranging the text as you see fit to accommodate your own personal preferences.

He was human writing letters to other humans, all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

What does inspiration even mean to you? It seems that you read Paul the same way you read Plato or Kant, as though Paul were simply offering up arguments and if you personally don't feel that the arguments are strong enough then you can completely disregard them. Throughout this thread you keep talking about how bad Paul's arguments are and how "muddled his thinking is."

If you only believe those things in Holy Scripture that you can work out and justify by way of human reason then you are a rationalist, and you do not hold to the central Christian doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. If a writing has no power beyond natural argument then it is certainly not inspired. If you are looking for profound argumentation and compelling, self-evident syllogisms, then you really ought to pick up a philosophical text rather than a sacred text.

 

[topher694]

It's an interpolation. Read 1 Cor. 14: 26-40. Then read it again, skipping vss. 33b-36. It reads, flows smoothly w/o the interpolation. He is speaking about prophecy, then he says this completely random thing about women, and then right back to prophecy? It is so random and out of place. No, someone took advantage of the command statement in vs. 37, and interpolated a statement on women. It is so obvious and has been noticed for a long time now.

Actually, this is the right idea, but there is a even better explanation that fits perfectly with the entirety of 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14. And no eisegesis needed.

 

[public hermit]

Oh dear. Now that is a bad argument. Vv. 37-38 certainly apply to vv. 26-33, but they apply a foriori to vv. 34-36. This is eisegesis on the most bald level, re-arranging the text as you see fit to accommodate your own personal preferences.

It's a well established argument. You don't have to like it, but it's clearly an interpolation. If you disagree, fine. But you asked, so I have my honest response.

eems that you read Paul the same way you read Plato or Kant, as though Paul were simply offering up arguments and if you personally don't feel that the arguments are strong enough then you can completely disregard them. Throughout this thread you keep talking about how bad Paul's arguments are how "muddled his thinking is."

If you only believe those things in Holy Scripture that you can work out and justify by way of human reason then you are a rationalist, and you do not hold to the central Christian doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. If a writing has no power beyond natural argument then it is certainly not inspired. If you are looking for profound argumentation and compelling, self-evident syllogisms, then you really ought to pick up a philosophical text rather than a sacred text

You seem upset. Look, I know this is shocking, but I don't rely on the scriptures as evidence. They are a tool given for faith, as a witness to and yet not identical to Christ. You act like it's a zero sum game, if Paul got one thing wrong the whole thing is a wash. There is no warrant for that.

 

[zippy2006]

I made a point years ago that is still perfectly relevant:

Yet it is very hard to argue that the texts are meant to be a thin matter of decorum when the arguments are grounded in deep realities such as the creation account, the law, and commands of the Lord (e.g. 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14).

A good question to ask when there is a conflict of interest is, "What would you have expected Paul to say in the event that he really did want to exclude women from leadership positions?" If references to the creation account, the law, and commands of the Lord are insufficient to demonstrate that what is being referring to is more than surface-level, then what would have sufficed?

The sad truth is that there is nothing any inspired author could have written to convince some people that women do not belong in a leadership role in a church. If Paul gives argumentation from the most central Biblical texts it will be claimed that his argumentation is faulty. If Paul literally states the position and immediately says that it is a command from the Lord and cannot be denied it will be claimed that it is an "interpolation" and doesn't actually apply. It is logically impossible for God to convey this truth to certain people through the Scriptures. The prophecy continues: "They have ears, but they do not hear. They have eyes, but they do not see."

 

[zippy2006]

You seem upset. Look, I know this is shocking, but I don't rely on the scriptures as evidence. They are a tool given for faith, as a witness to and yet not identical to Christ. You act like it's a zero sum game, if Paul got one thing wrong the whole thing is a wash. There is no warrant for that.

So no answer, then. No definition of inspiration.

 

[Paidiske]

The sad truth is that there is nothing any inspired author could have written to convince some people that women do not belong in a leadership role in a church. If Paul gives argumentation from the most central Biblical texts it will be claimed that his argumentation is faulty. If Paul literally states the position and immediately says that it is a command from the Lord and cannot be denied it will be claimed that it is an "interpolation" and doesn't actually apply.

This might be true, if it were not that we have also to contend with the Scriptures where Paul commends a woman apostle, a woman deacon, women who presided over house churches, and so on.

Paul cannot have it both ways; if he commends women in these roles, he cannot elsewhere be utterly forbidding them. Some people deal with this by explaining away the clear evidence that Paul worked with, supported and commended women in these roles, but that does too much violence to Scripture to be a workable answer.