1Timothy2 Challenge

[Neopatriarch]

Since v15 which is in the future tense is conjoined to v14 which is the perfect saying, “But she (refering back to “the woman IN SIN“) will be saved if they continue…” therefore only the woman IN SIN can do something to be saved, because a dead person, Eve cannot “continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” So it’s the perfect tense of v14 along with the future tense of v15 that prove that “the woman” cannot be Eve.

The woman in sin will be saved if they (a/the woman and a man) continue in faith...

The perfect tense indicates the present state which has resulted from a completed past action. It's true that Eve is dead. She had become a transgressor and so she was in a continued state of being a transgressor until she died, and yes, that is in the past. But remember, in 1 Timothy 2:14 Eve ("the woman") represents womankind. Womankind has fallen into transgression and they have become transgressors. The state of women being transgressors continues today. So, the use of the prefect tense is perfectly appropriate.

When verse 15 says "Yet she will be saved through childbearing" it means any Christian woman who is represented by Eve will (future tense) be saved through "childbearing". It is not referring to Eve. The antecedent of "she" is in verse 12. It is "a woman."

As I point out in my blog post, the chiastic structure determines the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:

A (9-10) Christian “women” (plural)
B (11-12) “a woman” (singular indefinite noun) –it means any Christian woman.
C (13) “Eve” (generic / representative woman)
C’ (14) “the woman” (generic / representative woman)
B’ (15a) “she” has the antecedent “a woman”
A’ (15b) “they” has the antecedent “women,” Christian women in context

 

[LJSGM]

No, it isn't. It is about showing the truth of Scripture and having everyone in the body of Christ following that truth. I have shown, adequately, that the egalitarian position is false according to Scripture. Of course, neither you nor anyone else is changing their minds. As I said, there is another motive within the egalitarian agenda other then finding the truth of Scripture and conforming ourselves to it. Seems like you guys want to conform Scripture into what you think it should say...

You say you care about the truth, but the truth is what is good, and preaching the gospel is good. Being arrogant isn't good.

No, Paul never, not once, says that a deacon/elder should be this and that. Paul says that a deacon/elder must be this and that. He must be the husband of one wife. That is vastly different then "should be" and it undermines your entire position. He isn't just restricting polygamy and giving suggestions on what a deacon/elder should be; he is giving requirements. One of them happens to be the husband of one wife. You have yet to explain how a woman can be the husband of one wife.

Here, I'll reword it for you.

Paul says that a man that is to be a deacon must be this, this and that... while a woman that is to be a deacon must be this, this and that... and some how you are trying to tell me that Paul restricted the office of deacon only to men.

You are trying to avoid the obvious then?

 

[LJSGM]

The perfect tense indicates the present state which has resulted from a completed past action. It's true that Eve is dead. She had become a transgressor and so she was in a continued state of being a transgressor until she died, and yes, that is in the past. But remember, in 1 Timothy 2:14 Eve ("the woman") represents womankind. Womankind has fallen into transgression and they have become transgressors. The state of women being transgressors continues today. So, the use of the prefect tense is perfectly appropriate.

When verse 15 says "Yet she will be saved through childbearing" it means any Christian woman who is represented by Eve will (future tense) be saved through "childbearing". It is not referring to Eve. The antecedent of "she" is in verse 12. It is "a woman."

As I point out in my blog post, the chiastic structure determines the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:

A (9-10) Christian “women” (plural)
B (11-12) “a woman” (singular indefinite noun) –it means any Christian woman.
C (13) “Eve” (generic / representative woman)
C’ (14) “the woman” (generic / representative woman)
B’ (15a) “she” has the antecedent “a woman”
A’ (15b) “they” has the antecedent “women,” Christian women in context

No woman is saved through bearing children.

There is a prophesy though that speaks of Eve's "offspring" defeating Satan when God was speaking to Eve.

It makes too much sense then to conclude that Eve (and all women) are redeemed through the childbirth of the Christ.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I grew up Pentacostal, Norrin. My father is a pastor of an Assembly of God church.

Obviously I find that surprising. The AG has officially welcomed women in ministry since its inception. I don't mean to offend, but you come across as not only disagreeing with that stance, but as not even really being aware of it.

I know a little something about the "gifts" of the Holy Spirit. However, according to Acts 1:21-22, an Apostle cannot exist today.

I reiterate: If those verses are the standard all apostles must meet, then neither Paul nor Barnabas qualified.

Tell me, if the Apostle is suppose to be an ongoing office, why didn't Paul write anything about it?

Obviously if he didn't write "anything" about it, there would be no issue. The fact that he *did* write some things about it -- mainly in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4.

Why didn't he give instructions on that office as he did with deacon and elder?

He gave no instructions about "evangelists." Do they therefore no longer exist?

You are doing as the Mormons and Catholics do assuming that the NT teaches that a human priesthood still exists despite Paul not mentioning that once.

Actually, my view is pretty much the exact opposite of theirs. I believe that the "priestly class" is an anachronism that belongs with the Obsolete Covenant. I perceive that the NT "ministry" is at most only very loosely related to the OT priesthood, but is much more the heir of the OT "prophetic" ministry.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

-- You seem to view the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" as almost being ecclesiology handbooks, and to consider 1 Tim. 2:11-13 and 3:1-10 and Tit. 1:5-9 to be absolute and universal. You then use these passage as definitive, and interpret others in light of them. I however follow the general Pentecostal hermeneutic: I hold Acts 2 and Gal. 3:28 as being universal, while I view the Timothy and Titus passages as applying *directly* to the churches in Ephesus and Crete, and only indirectly elsewhere. For each of us, this is somewhat of a "starting point," and as such it is difficult to prove our own position right, or to prove the other's wrong.
​

Your "starting point" leads to contradictions within the word of God.

No, it leads to contradictions with your interpretation of the word of God.

Paul says that the deacon/elder "must be [insert requirement here]." He does not say "should be." Because he says "must be" it is necessary that these are strict requirements that are universal. If he said "should be" or said "I suggest," then your case would be stronger. However, he did not say that.

The NASB says that it was "necessary" for an apostle to be one who had "accompanied" Peter and the others during the whole of Jesus' ministry. We know Paul did not qualify, and probably Barnabas likewise. And yet they were called, "apostles."

1 Tim. 2:8 says that Paul wants men "in every place" to pray with raised hands. And yet for some reason, the vast majority of the time, those who insist that 2:11-14 are universal wave away the portion that is *explicitly* universal.

Clearly "universal" is in the eye of the beholder.

Plus, the fact that "episkopos" is never used to describe a woman should be a huge hint that Paul was indeed restricting the office of elder to men only.

As I said, "presbuteros" does sometimes describe the person in the position of "episkopos," but when "presbuteros" is used to describe the office, it is always a man. You can be a "presbuteros" but not be an "episkopos" or a man; but you cannot be an "episkopos" and be a woman. There is no example of a woman being described as an "episkopos" anywhere in the NT.

I will happily repeat as often as necessary: If you mean that no particular woman in Scripture was ever called "episkopos," it is also the case that no particular *man* -- other than Jesus -- bore this exact title.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

-- You seem willing to change the rules in order to win your point. For instance, you insist that the alleged elder/overseer qualifications are immutable, thus no woman can satisfy them. OTOH, you insist that Paul was an apostle (and I agree -- Paul, Barnabas, and others), even though he did not meet the apostolic qualifications from Acts 1:21-22 that you yourself proposed as being absolute and universal.
​

Jesus didn't appear to Paul, Norrin? Seriously? Perhaps reading his conversion account once more will help you.

Perhaps YOU should review the alleged "qualifications" in Acts 1. They explicitly specify that the apostolic candidate *must* have been with Peter and the others for the entire duration of Jesus' earthly ministry.

No, I am not "changing the rules" at all. Paul witnessed the Resurrection of Christ. We know that Paul saw the physical, resurrected Christ because Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

That is not the "qualification" mandated in Acts 1:22. The mandate is that the candidate be one who has been with them. Once selected, the apostle will then join the others as "witnesses" -- those who testify on behalf of someone (1:8) -- regarding the Resurrection.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

-- You insist that Paul was not an "elder" or "overseer" because he was never explicitly called such; you rejected arguments based on function or "job description." You argued that the word, "elder" used at the beginning of two of John's epistles was merely a reference to his age, and was not a title. I'm not sure if you regard Peter's reference to himself likewise. Assuming you do, we have ZERO cases of any particular person other than Jesus bearing the titles, "elder," "overseer," or "pastor." If we can only classify persons by explicit Scriptural labels, not by Scriptural descriptions of function, we are left to conclude that "elder," "pastor," and "overseer" are basically just theoretical titles, with no concrete Scriptural examples.
​

Are you honestly telling me that you are going to ignore the different uses and meanings of the words "presbuteros" and "episkopos"?

I have no idea how that relates to what I said, so I'm going to ignore it.

As I said, Paul can be described as one who teaches and preaches, but we are all called to teach and preach the Gospel. You are missing the point in that the official office of the elder of a church is restricted to men.

No, I am denying that said restriction necessarily applies beyond Ephesus and Crete.

That is what you don't seem to understand. Paul was never called an elder/overseer of the church,

This is what you don't seem to understand: No one but Jesus was ever explicitly called "episkopos." No one but John and Peter were called, "presbuteros," and you have previously opined that in at least the case of John, it was only an adjective relating to his age.

So by your reckoning, other than Jesus, no one with the possible exception of Peter was ever called either episkopos or presbuteros.

despite him teaching and preaching the Gospel. One can go out and evangelize by preaching and be a woman, but that does not make her an elder. That's the entire point.

No, it is not. Paul preached and taught and evangelized, but that is far from ALL he did. He issued directives to churches he founded. By its nature, that is an oversight role. Paul was an overseer, even though he did not meet the qualifications he himself set down, just as he was an apostle even though he did not meet the alleged qualifications in Acts 1:21-22.

I'm amazed that you think the different words (i.e. presbuteros and episkopos) make no difference in what is being said...

I'm amazed by just about everything that comes out of your keyboard.

 

[CTyer]

We went over this before. It is restricting polygamy. Women were never allowed multiple husbands, so there was no need to set guidelines for them in this respect. Further, you are attempting to merge two topics in order to silence women from preaching in an assembly of believers. We should deal with each of these topics separately in their context.

Additionally, let me just mention that MOST of the Scripture is written in masculine form. We ALL know that the commandments apply to both men and women, but if we use your method of understanding, then it would mean that God says it is a sin for MEN to covet their neighbor's wives, and therefore the command does not apply to women, because women coveting their neighbor's husbands is never listed in the commandments, so a woman who does such is not doing anything wrong, because the commandment doesn't apply to her, because the Scripture clearly states that men shall not covet their neighbor's wives.

See how distorted that is when we use Scripture to further a particular preconceived agenda?

We use those Scriptures you cite, pointing to the "exact words" to restrict women, but yet the "exact words" don't apply when it comes to single men, married men with no children and widowed men. Why? Because it is understood that the whole context is that a minister is honorable, not that the minister is male, not that the minister is married, not that the minister has children, not that the minister's wife is living.

Much to your chagrin I'm sure, your posts have not gone unchallenged.

Calvin Tyer

It isn't simply restricting polygamy; it is a requirement/qualification of being an elder. This is why 1 Tim. 3:2 says that the elder "must be [insert requirements here]." It does not say "The elder should be [insert requirement here]."

My post stands unchallenged. A woman cannot be:

• Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
• Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
• Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)

 

[CmRoddy]

Obviously I find that surprising. The AG has officially welcomed women in ministry since its inception. I don't mean to offend, but you come across as not only disagreeing with that stance, but as not even really being aware of it.



I reiterate: If those verses are the standard all apostles must meet, then neither Paul nor Barnabas qualified.


Obviously if he didn't write "anything" about it, there would be no issue. The fact that he *did* write some things about it -- mainly in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4.



He gave no instructions about "evangelists." Do they therefore no longer exist?



Actually, my view is pretty much the exact opposite of theirs. I believe that the "priestly class" is an anachronism that belongs with the Obsolete Covenant. I perceive that the NT "ministry" is at most only very loosely related to the OT priesthood, but is much more the heir of the OT "prophetic" ministry.


No, it leads to contradictions with your interpretation of the word of God.



The NASB says that it was "necessary" for an apostle to be one who had "accompanied" Peter and the others during the whole of Jesus' ministry. We know Paul did not qualify, and probably Barnabas likewise. And yet they were called, "apostles."

1 Tim. 2:8 says that Paul wants men "in every place" to pray with raised hands. And yet for some reason, the vast majority of the time, those who insist that 2:11-14 are universal wave away the portion that is *explicitly* universal.

Clearly "universal" is in the eye of the beholder.



I will happily repeat as often as necessary: If you mean that no particular woman in Scripture was ever called "episkopos," it is also the case that no particular *man* -- other than Jesus -- bore this exact title.




Perhaps YOU should review the alleged "qualifications" in Acts 1. They explicitly specify that the apostolic candidate *must* have been with Peter and the others for the entire duration of Jesus' earthly ministry.



That is not the "qualification" mandated in Acts 1:22. The mandate is that the candidate be one who has been with them. Once selected, the apostle will then join the others as "witnesses" -- those who testify on behalf of someone (1:8) -- regarding the Resurrection.


I have no idea how that relates to what I said, so I'm going to ignore it.



No, I am denying that said restriction necessarily applies beyond Ephesus and Crete.



This is what you don't seem to understand: No one but Jesus was ever explicitly called "episkopos." No one but John and Peter were called, "presbuteros," and you have previously opined that in at least the case of John, it was only an adjective relating to his age.

So by your reckoning, other than Jesus, no one with the possible exception of Peter was ever called either episkopos or presbuteros.


No, it is not. Paul preached and taught and evangelized, but that is far from ALL he did. He issued directives to churches he founded. By its nature, that is an oversight role. Paul was an overseer, even though he did not meet the qualifications he himself set down, just as he was an apostle even though he did not meet the alleged qualifications in Acts 1:21-22.



I'm amazed by just about everything that comes out of your keyboard.

Wow.

Despite all this double speak, you still have not managed to show that women can be pastors. All you are doing is making mashed potatoes out of the text of Scripture. Paul is nowhere called an elder, but you claim he is. Paul is made an apostle by a unique event with Christ, but you say that he doesn't qualify despite Acts 1. You don't allow the different uses of the term "apostle" to speak (much like the different uses of "deacon") and apply one definition for all instances that it is used.

Here are the facts: The elder must be the husband of one wife and women are not to teach and practice authority because Adam was created first, not Eve. You have yet to deal with the actual passages in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 and have instead formed a rabbit trail to other subjects.

The qualifications of elder as stated makes it impossible for women to be elders. You obviously cannot exegete 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 consistently without getting complimentarianism.

 

[CmRoddy]

You say you care about the truth, but the truth is what is good, and preaching the gospel is good. Being arrogant isn't good.

So, holding a position, being able to use Scripture to successfully defend said position against attacks, and exposing the error and unbiblical conclusion of the other side makes me arrogant? So be it. The fact remains that egalitarianism is nothing more then political correctness in an area of Scripture that is very clear. Find me one instance where a woman is referred to as "episkopos" and you will have a case. However, no such place exists... but you can try I gues...

Here, I'll reword it for you.

Paul says that a man that is to be a deacon must be this, this and that... while a woman that is to be a deacon must be this, this and that... and some how you are trying to tell me that Paul restricted the office of deacon only to men.

You are trying to avoid the obvious then?

Wow. You don't process logic too well, huh? Paul says that the elder/deacon must be the husband of one wife... you actually agreed.

But then you turn around and say that He also gives instructions on women being elders/deacons despite the very next verse delcaring that the deacon must be the husband of one wife?

You have no textual basis for allowing women pastors, only your political correctness. You can deny this all you want, but I have come to this conslusion after what I have seen from you.

Anyone else care to tell me how a woman can:

• Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
• Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
• Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)

 

[CmRoddy]

We went over this before. It is restricting polygamy.

And I have said this before as well: it is not simply a restriction on polygamy. Paul wrote (in both 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1) that the elder "must be the husband of one wife." If it was simply a restriction of polygamy he would have written "the elder should be the husband of one wife" or "the elder must have only one spouse." The fact that he said "must be" undermines your position.

Care to actually tell me how a woman can:

• Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
• Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
• Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)

 

[CTyer]

Hey Matt, I mean CmRoddy (your posts reveal idolatry of Matt Slick, not only his arrogance but his teaching, which on many subjects, he teaches correctly, but on the other hand he is wrong in many areas, this being one of them.) Matt is not Lord, and you should NEVER follow a teacher that closely, but rather seek to follow the Holy Spirit as we men are fallible and although we may be sincere, it is possible that we can be sincerely wrong. This is where that is not only possible, but is such a case. You missed ALL of this that I said which addressed your questions. The problem is that your premise is flawed, but you refuse to see it. Do you care to respond to this portion of my post?

It is restricting polygamy. Women were never allowed multiple husbands, so there was no need to set guidelines for them in this respect. Further, you are attempting to merge two topics in order to silence women from preaching in an assembly of believers. We should deal with each of these topics separately in their context. Additionally, let me just mention that MOST of the Scripture is written in masculine form. We ALL know that the commandments apply to both men and women, but if we use your method of understanding, then it would mean that God says it is a sin for MEN to covet their neighbor's wives, and therefore the command does not apply to women, because women coveting their neighbor's husbands is never listed in the commandments, so a woman who does such is not doing anything wrong, because the commandment doesn't apply to her, because the Scripture clearly states that men shall not covet their neighbor's wives. See how distorted that is when we use Scripture to further a particular preconceived agenda? We use those Scriptures you cite, pointing to the "exact words" to restrict women, but yet the "exact words" don't apply when it comes to single men, married men with no children and widowed men. Why? Because it is understood that the whole context is that a minister is honorable, not that the minister is male, not that the minister is married, not that the minister has children, not that the minister's wife is living. Much to your chagrin I'm sure, your posts have not gone unchallenged.

And I have said this before as well: it is not simply a restriction on polygamy. Paul wrote (in both 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1) that the elder "must be the husband of one wife." If it was simply a restriction of polygamy he would have written "the elder should be the husband of one wife" or "the elder must have only one spouse." The fact that he said "must be" undermines your position.

Care to actually tell me how a woman can:

• Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
• Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
• Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)

 

[LJSGM]

So, I would really like you to address this and not ignore it.

11In the same way, the women are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

Do you believe some how that Men must have wives that are "worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but termperate and trustworthy in everything" or they can not be deacons/elders? And since women matter so little to you, why does a woman need to be trustworthy if she is not entrusted with anything.

Also, what does Paul mean by "in the same way"

 

[LJSGM]

You have no textual basis for allowing women pastors, only your political correctness. You can deny this all you want, but I have come to this conslusion after what I have seen from you.

It's easy to deny since we haven't been speaking of politics.

 

[CmRoddy]

Hey Matt, I mean CmRoddy (your posts reveal idolatry of Matt Slick, not only his arrogance but his teaching, which on many subjects, he teaches correctly, but on the other hand he is wrong in many areas, this being one of them.) Matt is not Lord, and you should NEVER follow a teacher that closely, but rather seek to follow the Holy Spirit as we men are fallible and although we may be sincere, it is possible that we can be sincerely wrong. This is where that is not only possible, but is such a case. You missed ALL of this that I said which addressed your questions. The problem is that your premise is flawed, but you refuse to see it. Do you care to respond to this portion of my post?

I'm not the one with the false premise. You think that it is a "restriction on polygamy" when it isn't. Therefore, you have the false premise. It isn't even worth dealing with the rest of the argument when it starts on the wrong foot.

So, I would really like you to address this and not ignore it.

11In the same way, the women are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

Do you believe some how that Men must have wives that are "worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but termperate and trustworthy in everything" or they can not be deacons/elders? And since women matter so little to you, why does a woman need to be trustworthy if she is not entrusted with anything.

Also, what does Paul mean by "in the same way"

I have already addressed this. If you missed it, go back and read.

 

[LJSGM]

I have already addressed this. If you missed it, go back and read.

I have read every post of yours to me.

I don't believe you have addressed it.

But even if you did, could you address it again.

I really think you're avoiding those verses.

 

[CTyer]

But you are, and I explained in detail why you are. You, however are unable to defend your stance. You just say, "it isn't" or "it is" without any exegesis to offer at all. And I disagree, it is worth dealing with, as it directly opposes and confronts your (Matt Slick's really as it isn't yours, you get it from him) misuse of Scripture. Again I will repeat myself, and you care to have a serious and sincere discussion, then you will address it, the other option is to go with pride and arrogance. You are in school, probably not just to learn, but in hopes one day you will teach. Consider this your training ground. You cannot just dismiss your students, and say, "I am right, you are wrong, end of story." You will have to provide a detailed defense of your teachings, so start practicing now.

Here is my explanation again. Refute it if you can.

"It is restricting polygamy. Women were never allowed multiple husbands, so there was no need to set guidelines for them in this respect. Further, you are attempting to merge two topics in order to silence women from preaching in an assembly of believers. We should deal with each of these topics separately in their context.

Additionally, let me just mention that MOST of the Scripture is written in masculine form. We ALL know that the commandments apply to both men and women, but if we use your method of understanding, then it would mean that God says it is a sin for MEN to covet their neighbor's wives, and therefore the command does not apply to women, because women coveting their neighbor's husbands is never listed in the commandments, so a woman who does such is not doing anything wrong, because the commandment doesn't apply to her, because the Scripture clearly states that men shall not covet their neighbor's wives.

See how distorted that is when we use Scripture to further a particular preconceived agenda?

We use those Scriptures you cite, pointing to the "exact words" to restrict women, but yet the "exact words" don't apply when it comes to single men, married men with no children and widowed men. Why? Because it is understood that the whole context is that a minister is honorable, not that the minister is male, not that the minister is married, not that the minister has children, not that the minister's wife is living.

Much to your chagrin I'm sure, your posts have not gone unchallenged."

I'm not the one with the false premise. You think that it is a "restriction on polygamy" when it isn't. Therefore, you have the false premise. It isn't even worth dealing with the rest of the argument when it starts on the wrong foot.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Wow.

Despite all this double speak, you still have not managed to show that women can be pastors. All you are doing is making mashed potatoes out of the text of Scripture.

Serious question: Why is it "exegesis" when it comes from your keyboard, but "double speak" and "mashed potatoes" and "eisegesis" and "twisting Scripture" when it comes from mine? Can you enlighten me as to the principles you use in making this determination?

Paul is nowhere called an elder, but you claim he is.

No, I never claimed he was ever "called" an elder. I claim he *was* an elder, because he *functioned* as one, but I do not claim that Scripture ever explicitly applied that label.

Paul is made an apostle by a unique event with Christ, but you say that he doesn't qualify despite Acts 1. You don't allow the different uses of the term "apostle" to speak (much like the different uses of "deacon") and apply one definition for all instances that it is used.

No, YOU are the one who said that on the basis of Acts 1 there can no longer be "apostles," despite the clear teaching of 1 Cor. 12-13 and Eph. 4. YOU are the one who made Acts 1 the universal rule for all apostles, and thus made Scripture contradict itself in regard to Paul.

Here are the facts: The elder must be the husband of one wife and women are not to teach and practice authority because Adam was created first, not Eve.

And Bonzo the Chimp is in charge, because animals were created before Adam.

You have yet to deal with the actual passages in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 and have instead formed a rabbit trail to other subjects.

"Analogy of Faith" and "Analogy of Scripture" have typically been regarded as legitimate tools of exegesis. When did they become relabeled as "form(ing) a rabbit trail"?

The qualifications of elder as stated makes it impossible for women to be elders. You obviously cannot exegete 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 consistently without getting complimentarianism.

Sure I can. I do it all the time. You just don't like my methodology.

 

[LJSGM]

Sure I can. I do it all the time. You just don't like my methodology.

Either that or he can't accept the fact that God gave women the same goals, the same annoiting, the same gifting, the same power and the same ability to lead as men. It offends him that God does not give these things based on qualifications of the flesh.