Men listening to women teach the Bible!

[Clare73]

No! And that's all I'll say because this is the "conservative" forum section and I don't want to step on toes ... especially if I, or the sources of MY position, are readily misunderstood and dismissed.

But, have a blessed Sunday, Clare!

You're scrambling my brains.

Are you or your sources thinking, in light of the creation-order principles in which Paul grounds his instructions:
1) submit to your husbands as to the Lord, for
2) the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church, his body,
3) as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything,

that these Christian principles apply only to the Ephesian women and are not principles for all Christian women?

Are you or your sources thinking the offensive Greek culture
negates NT apostolic teaching to Ephesian wives' regarding submission to their husbands, or that
it excludes other Christian wives from those principles in which Paul's instructions are grounded, or that
this teaching based on these Christian principles is not to be taken at its clear word, but is to be adapted to agree more with our times?
If so, that is setting one's opinion above NT principles which, by the nature of "principle," apply to all Christians.

Can you unscramble my brains for me, here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're scrambling my brains.

Are you or your sources thinking, in light of the spiritual principles in which Paul grounds his instructions:
1) submit to your husbands as to the Lord, for
2) the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church, his body,
3) as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything,
that his instructions apply only to the Ephesian women?

Yes. She is saying that Paul was instruction Ephensians (as I'm sure he did the other Greek churches) to let go of their more pagan understanding and practices and transform their outlook to one that comports with the order that Christ would have us have.

Are you or your sources thinking the offensive Greek culture
negates NT apostolic teaching to Ephesian wives' regarding submission to their husbands, or that
it excludes other Christian wives from those spiritual principles in which Paul's instructions are grounded, or that
this teaching based on these spiritual principles is not to be taken at its clear word, but is to be adapted to agree more with our times?

Can you unscramble my brains for me, here?

Yes. Kroeger, in sum, was saying that Grecian non-Christian women of Paul's time were not uncommonly 'radical' in ways that were not compatible with the profession of faith in Christ, and it was THIS problem specifically that Paul was primarily addressing in the 1st letter to Timothy.

Of course, if we didn't have modern archaeology and history and other sciences for our hermeneutical studies (which is not 'rationalizing' by any stretch of the imagination) by which to aid us in our understanding of the cultural in which Paul was preaching, we could easily miss what the actual issues were that he was addressing, issues that the Greek churches in places like Ephesus and Corinth were having a difficult time dealing with. ... Kind of like in the U.S. these days.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies it for you, Clare.

 

[Simon_Templar]

It depends on the context.

What Paul is talking about in 1st Timothy 2:12 is ordained authority in the Church.

This is something that is largely irrelevant in a lot of Churches today as few if any people believe that the Church has authority.
In the traditional Church (and the early Church) the teaching of the Church was authoritative, meaning you were bound to obey it.

In most Churches today, the teaching is basically just either self-help speeches, or at best academic lectures. That is not what Paul is talking about.

There is no problem, for example, sitting in a bible class being taught by a woman, or a woman writing books about theology etc. That is not authoritative teaching. It relies on her expertise as a scholar etc.

If your church does not ascribe legitimate teaching authority to it's leadership, then it is probably not really what Paul is talking about. If it is outside of the authority of the Church it is definitively not what Paul is talking about.

What Paul is saying is that women cannot be ordained with the authority of the episcopal (and by extension the presbyterate) office.

 

[Rescued One]

I don't know very many women in life. I have mixed thoughts on this subject because I learn a lot from men and women. It a different way the two think.

I don't think that men and women have different revelations of scripture. But men have authority in the church and boys and girls share classes.

2 Timothy 1:5
I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.

 

[Mike McK]

Is this okay?

The prohibition against women teaching men appears to be only in the context of the church.

There is a podcast called "Feminine, Not Feminist" which my wife and daughters listen to. It's aimed at women, obviously, but when I hear it, I'm always struck by the girl's wisdom and knowledge of scripture, even though she's only in her mid twenties.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Is this okay?

One of the reasons I love the scriptures is that it's a zero sum game. If you take any particular stance that is not sound, it's revealed by other scriptures that bad positions can't get past.

Women preaching really isn't an issue. What's taught is.

And if someone says women preaching is not legit, or even other sects preaching even if they are wrong, there is always this one to counter the majority of said claims:

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Every way...

The only reasonable way to see this is that Paul had far more confidence in Christ than any forms of proclaimers

So much for the "men only" crowds

 

[Rescued One]

Lois and Eunice

 

[bèlla]

When I share teachings with a gentleman it’s always a man. There are instances when a couple addresses a topic together like marriage and I’m okay with that. But I always listen beforehand and have a good understanding of their ministry and its suitability for his spiritual condition. Just because a message resonates with me doesn’t mean it’s the appropriate teaching on the subject for him. Maturity matters.

Struggles are part of my decision making too that’s why I prefer a man. We can have similar challenges and respond to them differently. I don’t ignore the realities of gender, cultural and societal influences. There’s another element within the spectrum related to accountability. We want to be hearers and doers of the word and that requires different components. We’re generally more vulnerable with persons like ourselves than the opposite sex and you want a continuum. Hearing, doing, challenge or counsel (if needed) and support.

I anchor that practice with related suggestions in respect to their friendships and encourage them to foster bonds with godly men. And the same holds true for resources. I read a lot of books written for men to increase my awareness and aid the ones in my life and consume content along those lines. I never point them to a woman. If she’s in the equation it’s a reflection of a pairing in service to the Lord and both are solid. That’s my practice. Others may differ.

~bella

 

[Carl Emerson]

One of the reasons I love the scriptures is that it's a zero sum game. If you take any particular stance that is not sound, it's revealed by other scriptures that bad positions can't get past.

Women preaching really isn't an issue. What's taught is.

And if someone says women preaching is not legit, or even other sects preaching even if they are wrong, there is always this one to counter the majority of said claims:

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Every way...

The only reasonable way to see this is that Paul had far more confidence in Christ than any forms of proclaimers

So much for the "men only" crowds

Some will say 'Preaching' and holding leadership are two different issues. They claim - women preachers yes - women apostles or leaders - no.

 

[Carl Emerson]

One of the reasons I love the scriptures is that it's a zero sum game. If you take any particular stance that is not sound, it's revealed by other scriptures that bad positions can't get past.

It is very common to ignore scriptures that don't align with one's position.

This is largely because positions are taught not caught through long term devotional study.

If one takes 5 years plus to read nothing but scripture devotionally, the critical theological issues largely resolve.

 

[jas3]

Women preaching really isn't an issue. What's taught is.

1 Tim. 2:12 is about women teaching. It says nothing about what they teach.

And if someone says women preaching is not legit, or even other sects preaching even if they are wrong, there is always this one to counter the majority of said claims:

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

You may want to read the context of that verse. St. Paul says that he doesn't mind brethren preaching Christ against him maliciously because Christ is still preached. Does that mean it's OK to preach Christ maliciously? No. Does that mean if a Collyridian preaches Christ, Collyridianism is fine? No. Does that mean if a Unitarian Universalist lady pastor preaches Christ, there's no problem with Unitarian Universalism? Of course not.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

1 Tim. 2:12 is about women teaching. It says nothing about what they teach.

Paul stated when speaking of men/women issues he was correlating to Christ and the church matters

All church members are technically "women" i.e. the BRIDE, and we all should learn to keep silent in favor of our Husband's Words. Eph. 5:32

I understand carnal people won't get the picture and actually can't because they are locked into literal carnal only sights

You may want to read the context of that verse. St. Paul says that he doesn't mind brethren preaching Christ against him maliciously because Christ is still preached. Does that mean it's OK to preach Christ maliciously?

He says pretence. And since we all technically know only in part that can be said of any of us. No one has the entire and full package of sights. IF we're speaking honestly. Truth be known those who preach from a position of loving our neighbors are the ones who speak correctly because they got the main point correct.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

If one takes 5 years plus to read nothing but scripture devotionally, the critical theological issues largely resolve.

If that were really the case there wouldn't be as many sects as there are

 

[jas3]

Paul stated when speaking of men/women issues he was correlating to Christ and the church matters

No, he didn't.

He says pretence. And since we all technically know only in part that can be said of any of us.

No, it can't, otherwise Paul wouldn't have contrasted the malicious preachers with the good-faith preachers, who were also fallible men.

And with that, I will take my leave of this conversation. Women's ordination is not in any sense of the term a "conservative Christian" position, and until relatively recently in history no one would have even acknowledged it as a Christian position at all. So I won't dignify it with further discussion as if it deserves to be heard out, especially on the conservative subforum.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

No, he didn't.
No, it can't, otherwise Paul wouldn't have contrasted the malicious preachers with the good-faith preachers, who were also fallible men.

Pretty sure I cited Eph. 5:32, but if not, here is the reference.

And with that, I will take my leave of this conversation. Women's ordination is not in any sense of the term a "conservative Christian" position,

It's merely the opinion of a few strict literalist protestants and various sects, cults and offshoots, of whom I am not nor was Paul. Gal. 4:21-24 among many others

and until relatively recently in history no one would have even acknowledged it as a Christian position at all. So I won't dignify it with further discussion as if it deserves to be heard out, especially on the conservative subforum.

I suppose your men don't marry then since you want to cite orthodoxy.

You can declare your literal sight only opinion is the only right sight, and think you have the victory. It merely enforces your own limited sights at the detriment of better sights, many more scriptural citings that I spared you from having to engage. I prefer the upgraded encompassing versions that can traverse all the scriptures, not just the few that might support my own past limited sights

 

[Carl Emerson]

If that were really the case there wouldn't be as many sects as there are

Sorry I may have misunderstood your response...

To expand, there are few who take 5+ years to regularly read scripture alone while asking Jesus to open understanding to them.
Most glean their theology from others.
God hates the prophets who steal one another's words... and John says the anointing is to be our teacher.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Sorry I may have misunderstood your response...

To expand, there are few who take 5+ years to regularly read scripture alone while asking Jesus to open understanding to them.
Most glean their theology from others.
God hates the prophets who steal one another's words... and John says the anointing is to be our teacher.

I've studied for 40 years and been helped from above, assuredly.

What I learned wasn't pleasant, but is true.

Nevertheless believers are also meant to share. And all of us are essentially wrong to some degree or another. Kind of a basic Holy Spirit lesson. Puts everything else in perspective.