Should Women Be Silent In Church?

[nolidad]

No, Paul didn't say that at all.

Yes He did when he forbade women to teach and usurp authority over men. It is a both and- women should not teach men or have authority over men in the church.

Again, WE are the church.

Yes we are and as such, we should be obedient to the New Testament rules and regulations for the church.

Yes - and how many people teach on this verse, or criticise men for NOT holding up holy hands, or for being angry and having doubts? In my experience, verses like this are conveniently overlooked while folk attack the women.

Your language here reveals much! I can only speak for myself and whom I teach. I do not attack women when I share what God has to say about roles in the church. I also do not attack men when I speak on their responsibilities in the church. If gods' Word commands it, why do you consider it an attack??

 

[nolidad]

If it's wrong for women to wear gold, why do we exchange gold wedding rings in church?
As for "costly array"; how costly is costly?

You miss the main point of this teaching. It is about superficiality, not a prohibition on jewelry. But in gatherings of the church, those with means should not flaunt their wealth in the face of those without means.

Absolutely. Everyone should learn in silence; if you're talking, you won't hear anything.

So why don't you practice it, instead of feeling attacked by God?

Yes, but what does that verse MEAN?
1. That Paul did not allow a woman to teach? Why did he allow Priscilla to teach Apollos then? And anyway, Paul's not around now.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Priscilla taught Apollos.

So if we should not obey this by Paul because He is not here now, does that mean everything Paul spoke against is now okay to do?

2. How can a woman usurp (grab violently by force) authority from a man, when ALL authority is from Jesus, Matthew 28:19, and other people recognise and freely accept the authority that he gives? When I trained as a preacher I had a male tutor, a male Minister, a male Superintendent and the Chair of District, and even President of the Conference, (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) were men. All agreed that this was the call that GOD had given to me, and allowed and commissioned me to do it. At the service, the congregation were asked if they would accept my ministry, and all said 'yes'. Authority that is given by God and freely accepted by others, cannot be snatched.

I think you need to look up the definitions and uses of the the greek word we translate as usurp (authenteo)

As for your defense of you being a biblical pastor- The church near my house did all the same thing and all agreed that God approved an unrepentant, practicing lesbian to be the pastor of their congregation! From the congregation, to the elders, to the head of their sect. Does that mean God approves? I know the answer is no!

Jesus eschewed the Jews for voiding the word of God by their traditions, and we as those who dare name the name of Jesus as Savior are just as guilty of substituting our traditions and opinions and placing them above the Word of God!

I wouldn't have said that 1760 was recent, myself, but maybe it's all relative.
Both John Wesley and William Booth allowed women to preach. John Wesley acknowledged that his own mother was the forerunner of female preachers in the Methodist church.
I don't know whether Catherine of Siena preached in the 1300's, but she was asked by the Pope to teach his cardinals and to help him reorganise the church.
Hilda of Whitby founded a monastery for both monks and nuns in 657 AD and became its abbess.

It matters not what men have done. None of them were Apostles who laid the foundations of the church!

Any Pope, priest, pastor, deacon, minister, etc. who teaches doctrines that run contrary to the Word of God are wrong! That does not mean that women are less than men, but God placed His order in the church. We shoould not allow our own natural inclinations to try to subvert the Word of God!

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes He did when he forbade women to teach and usurp authority over men. It is a both and- women should not teach men or have authority over men in the church.

Many people do not agree with your interpretation.

Yes we are

So therefore, talk of us being IN church is confusing.

Your language here reveals much! I can only speak for myself and whom I teach. I do not attack women when I share what God has to say about roles in the church. I also do not attack men when I speak on their responsibilities in the church. If gods' Word commands it, why do you consider it an attack??

1. I didn't say that YOU were personally doing the attacking. I appreciate that I should have made it clearer, but over the years and debates on this subject, people on this forum HAVE attacked women for preaching; they have said "you are NOT called ..." "you are disobedient ....." "you are a feminist", "you preach the Gospel? Oh well, we're in end times; what can you expect?"
Yet no one has said "are men holding up holy hands without anger? No? Disgraceful how they are disobeying God's word."
2 So DO you hold up holy hands without anger or wrath - or does that verse only speak, and apply, to women?

 

[Strong in Him]

You miss the main point of this teaching. It is about superficiality, not a prohibition on jewelry. But in gatherings of the church, those with means should not flaunt their wealth in the face of those without means.

I'm perfectly aware of the meaning. But you quoted that verse in a discussion about women not preaching God's word. You must have had a reason for that.

So why don't you practice it, instead of feeling attacked by God?

I don't feel attacked by God.
I'm called, blessed and inspired by God.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Priscilla taught Apollos.

It says that Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos - and doesn't say that she did none of the teaching.

So if we should not obey this by Paul because He is not here now, does that mean everything Paul spoke against is now okay to do?

No, it depends on the context, the circumstances and other Scriptures.
There are many other Scriptural examples of women proclaiming God's word - Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah's wife, Philip's daughters, the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene. Paul had many female co workers, whom he commended for their hard work for the Gospel. True, he doesn't say they preached - but he doesn't say that they didn't, either.

And I was speaking to anyone who takes this verse literally - "I do not allow a woman to teach", means Paul did not allow this. It is not a command from God, and he is not here to impose it on our churches today.

I think you need to look up the definitions and uses of the the greek word we translate as usurp (authenteo)

I think you need to explain what you mean by it - as I asked you.

As for your defense of you being a biblical pastor-

I'm not.

The church near my house did all the same thing and all agreed that God approved an unrepentant, practicing lesbian to be the pastor of their congregation!

That's between them and God.

Does that mean God approves? I know the answer is no!

1 It's not the same situation.
2 Whatever you "know" about my call to preach the Gospel, you would have no right, or authority, to come and demand to my church leaders that I be stopped from doing it.

Jesus eschewed the Jews for voiding the word of God by their traditions, and we as those who dare name the name of Jesus as Savior are just as guilty of substituting our traditions and opinions and placing them above the Word of God!

Some people misinterpret the word of God, take it out of context or at face value.

The Jews, mostly, missed their long awaited Messiah when he came. Why? Because their beliefs told them that the Messiah would be a military leader who would lead them into revolution against their enemies.
So when Jesus was born to a virgin, had a ministry as an itinerant preacher, healed the sick, raised the dead, preached freedom to the prisoners, was despised, denied, betrayed, whipped and killed, and then raised from the dead - all of which was prophesied in Scripture; they rejected him. Jesus of Nazareth did not fit their idea of a Messiah - so they said that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, accused him of blasphemy, and killed him. After Pentecost, when Peter told them what they had done, many of them were "cut to the heart, and repented, Acts of the Apostles 2:37-41.
But at the time, they missed what God was doing right in front of them.

It matters not what men have done. None of them were Apostles who laid the foundations of the church!

I wrote that in response to your statement "it is only recently that women have been allowed to preach and become Pastors".
I was showing you that it is not a recent thing at all.

Paul didn't "lay the foundations of the church" - and in any case, it's God's church; and if he wants to call a woman to proclaim his word, he is perfectly entitled to do that.

Any Pope, priest, pastor, deacon, minister, etc. who teaches doctrines that run contrary to the Word of God are wrong! That does not mean that women are less than men, but God placed His order in the church. We shoould not allow our own natural inclinations to try to subvert the Word of God!

Natural inclinations??
My natural inclination on a Saturday night is to watch DVDs with a huge box of chocolates - not spend hours preparing a service which people may not appreciate, and may elicit no comment except "nice hymns".
My natural inclination is to have an easy life, go our and do my own thing - not spend time studying, reading commentaries and trying to prepare a sermon which may be consider weak by some and too erudite by others. Or spend hours in meetings being given safeguarding training, ongoing development etc etc - so that congregations can be assured that I am properly trained, vetted and am developing the gift that God gave me.

Preaching was not my desire, or plan - God called me to it. And as I am submitted to God, there was only one possible response.

 

[nolidad]

Many people do not agree with your interpretation.

Well as it is a straight forward reading of the words as written, it is not an interpretation or opinion.

So therefore, talk of us being IN church is confusing.

And you are a pastor and do not know the language of being the church and being in church?

1. I didn't say that YOU were personally doing the attacking. I appreciate that I should have made it clearer, but over the years and debates on this subject, people on this forum HAVE attacked women for preaching; they have said "you are NOT called ..." "you are disobedient ....." "you are a feminist", "you preach the Gospel? Oh well, we're in end times; what can you expect?"
Yet no one has said "are men holding up holy hands without anger? No? Disgraceful how they are disobeying God's word."
2 So DO you hold up holy hands without anger or wrath - or does that verse only speak, and apply, to women?

I didn't think you were attacking me, but using the phraseology of women being attacked shows a deep seated anger or resentment in you. You should not be preaching in a church setting with men and women and that is not an attack or a judgment just a biblical fact.

Yes you are being disobedient. Not in an intentional evil way, but disregarding clear passages of Scripture rob us of blessings.

As for your #2- as the greek word is aner, it means the male part of anthropos.

m perfectly aware of the meaning. But you quoted that verse in a discussion about women not preaching God's word. You must have had a reason for that.

I was answering you using that point. I did not bring it up- you did.

I don't feel attacked by God.
I'm called, blessed and inspired by God.

Well your use of terems leads one to believe you feel attacked by someone and seek to lash out. gods Word tells you not to teach in church so He seems a natural attacker.

It says that Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos - and doesn't say that she did none of the teaching.

As I looked up all verses Apollos was mentioned, I did not find that, so can you cite the verse you are referring to?

No, it depends on the context, the circumstances and other Scriptures.
There are many other Scriptural examples of women proclaiming God's word - Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah's wife, Philip's daughters, the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene. Paul had many female co workers, whom he commended for their hard work for the Gospel. True, he doesn't say they preached - but he doesn't say that they didn't, either.

First, the OT is not the church.
Second, women sharing information with men is not forbidden, just holding the offices of the church!
Nor share in an official church gathering in mixed sex company! That is what is written.

Yes many many women were commended for their work for the gospel. Women can evangelize, encourage, share with individuals etc.etc.etc. They just cannot hold th eoffice of pasto teacher prophet in the church! Yes they can even prophesy.

Some people misinterpret the word of God, take it out of context or at face value.

The Jews, mostly, missed their long awaited Messiah when he came. Why? Because their beliefs told them that the Messiah would be a military leader who would lead them into revolution against their enemies.
So when Jesus was born to a virgin, had a ministry as an itinerant preacher, healed the sick, raised the dead, preached freedom to the prisoners, was despised, denied, betrayed, whipped and killed, and then raised from the dead - all of which was prophesied in Scripture; they rejected him. Jesus of Nazareth did not fit their idea of a Messiah - so they said that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, accused him of blasphemy, and killed him. After Pentecost, when Peter told them what they had done, many of them were "cut to the heart, and repented, Acts of the Apostles 2:37-41.
But at the time, they missed what God was doing right in front of them

Many Jews did not see that Messiah had to first come to redeem them from sin before they were to recieve thier long awaited kingdom. But many didn't! YOu seem to forget that the early church until Paul was exclusively Jewish converts!

And once again if you read Jewish history, especially of Pharaseeism you would know that they failed to see because they were taught badly. Remember people did not have access to their own bibles and trusted the rabbis exclusively for teaching. We have access to Gods Word so we are far more accountable than the average Jewish person in Jesus day.

I wrote that in response to your statement "it is only recently that women have been allowed to preach and become Pastors".
I was showing you that it is not a recent thing at all.

Paul didn't "lay the foundations of the church" - and in any case, it's God's church; and if he wants to call a woman to proclaim his word, he is perfectly entitled to do that.

Well I was speaking of a practice and not isolated incidences of women.

Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

So you believe Paul was not an apostle?

And yes if God wanted women to preach He would have said so! But when He makes a very unambiguous statement, we should pay attention!

Natural inclinations??
My natural inclination on a Saturday night is to watch DVDs with a huge box of chocolates - not spend hours preparing a service which people may not appreciate, and may elicit no comment except "nice hymns".
My natural inclination is to have an easy life, go our and do my own thing - not spend time studying, reading commentaries and trying to prepare a sermon which may be consider weak by some and too erudite by others. Or spend hours in meetings being given safeguarding training, ongoing development etc etc - so that congregations can be assured that I am properly trained, vetted and am developing the gift that God gave me.

Preaching was not my desire, or plan - God called me to it. And as I am submitted to God, there was only one possible response.

Well I will tell you what my old pastor told me, if you can be happy doing anything else other than pastoring-then do it! But if you are compelled and HAVE to pastor then you know it is a calling. Pastors are under far greater scrutiny from God for they are the under shpeherds of the flocks of God.

And you do not even realize that you are following one of your natural inclinations by usurping authoriity in the church!

I think you need to explain what you mean by it - as I asked you.

Okay- straight from a greek dictionary, the different uses of the word we translate as usurp:

Transliteration
authenteō
Pronunciation
au-then-te'-ō αὐτός (G846) and an obsolete hentes (a worker)
Greek Inflections of αὐθεντέω αὐθεντεῖν — 1x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: usurp authority over (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage G846 and an obsolete ἕντης héntēs (a worker); to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate:—usurp authority over.

Outline of Biblical Usage G846 and an obsolete ἕντης héntēs (a worker); to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate:—usurp authority over.

1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself
   
   
2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
   
   
3. an absolute master
   
   
4. to govern, exercise dominion over one
   

Thayer's Greek Lexicon 1 Timothy 2:12.

As it is not saying murder or absolute master 2 and 4 are the biblical standard as set forth in places like Genesis 3 and Ephesians 5

 

[Strong in Him]

Well as it is a straight forward reading of the words as written, it is not an interpretation or opinion.

But it's not.
"I [Paul] do not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man", is not at all the same as saying "the Lord commands that no woman in the church anywhere will ever teach a man or lead Bible studies" - not even remotely the same.

If it was a clear command - and Paul was an intelligent guy, he could have written it the way I just did, or made it REALLY clear, there would be no disagreement. Unless you're suggesting that some of your sisters in Christ are so disobedient/selfish/egotistical/obsessed with equal rights (delete as applicable) that they deliberately disobey Scripture so that they can do their own thing.
Presumably all these women are really clever too, as they persuade male clergy, theologians etc to train and ordain them?

And you are a pastor and do not know the language of being the church and being in church?

I'm not a Pastor, I've already said that. I am a lay preacher - not ordained.

I didn't think you were attacking me, but using the phraseology of women being attacked shows a deep seated anger or resentment in you.

I am neither - I know what I have been called to.
But it can feel like an attack when someone who doesn't now you says "you are NOT called to preach". That was not a suggestion or advice, but a dogmatic statement and flat out denial.

You should not be preaching in a church setting with men and women and that is not an attack or a judgment just a biblical fact.

Again, it's an interpretation. Many clergy do not see it that way.

Yes you are being disobedient. Not in an intentional evil way, but disregarding clear passages of Scripture rob us of blessings.

I, my Minister, my Superintendent and various churches believe that I am called to preach the Gospel. I know that God has called me to do this - if I didn't do it, that would be disobedience.
I am blessed when I preach, and many people tell me that are blessed by what I say, (their words.)

gods Word tells you not to teach in church so He seems a natural attacker.

God doesn't attack me - he called, inspires and encourages, me.

As I looked up all verses Apollos was mentioned, I did not find that, so can you cite the verse you are referring to?

Acts of the Apostles 18:26

First, the OT is not the church.

I know.
But if it was never God's will or plan that a woman should be in leadership over men, then he would never have called them to be so. Deborah was a judge in Israel and a prophetess - sorting out men's disputes and proclaiming the word of the Lord. The Lord raised up judges, and while they ruled, people were turned towards God. When the judge died, the people fell away until the next one was raised up.. Huldah was a prophetess, whom male priests CHOSE to consult when the King wanted a word from the Lord. They didn't have to; they could have gone to Jeremiah.

Second, women sharing information with men is not forbidden,

How then do you define "teaching"?

Nor share in an official church gathering in mixed sex company! That is what is written.

Only if you interpret 1 Timothy 2:12 in that way.
Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11 how a woman should pray and prophesy. In 1 Corinthians 14 he teaches that those who speak in tongues and prophesy should do so only one at at a time - and does not say "obviously women are excluded from this". In 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 he lists the gifts of the Spirit - which include teacher and pastor - again, he does not say that these are not for the women.

Women can evangelize,

So you don't feel that a woman who says to a man, "you are a sinner. This is what the Bible says about sin, this is what God did about it and this is how we can be reconciled to God and have eternal life", is teaching him or having some kind of authority over him?

Many Jews did not see that Messiah had to first come to redeem them from sin before they were to recieve thier long awaited kingdom. But many didn't! YOu seem to forget that the early church until Paul was exclusively Jewish converts!

Not at all.
My point was that because they were so fixed in their traditions and what they thought Scripture said about the Messiah, they missed what God was doing right in front of them.

Same applies here.
What God is doing today, is calling women to preach and be ordained. As God will not contradict his word, that tells me that, clearly, he cannot have forbidden this in his word.
But people who can't accept that God can call women to be ordained and preachers, dismiss what is happening today, writing off the women who preach as being disobedient. They are so convinced that the way the read Scripture is the correct way, they won't consider what is happening in front of them.

To be continued tomorrow (possibly); I need sleep.

 

[Strong in Him]

Continued.

Well I was speaking of a practice and not isolated incidences of women.

It was the "only recently" bit that I was challenging.
Throughout history, it seems, women have preached, taught and worked in, and for, the church.

So you believe Paul was not an apostle?

Of course he was.
But THE founder of the church was Jesus. Jesus is our rock, our corner stone and our head.
Paul preached the Gospel, God converted people through him and he established local congregations of believers. One of those congregations was at Philippi, where Paul went, found women at the place of prayer, told them about Jesus, then went to stay with Lydia, Acts of the Apostles 16:13-15. The first believers at Philippi were women who were, probably, largely responsible for preaching the Gospel after Paul had left. Certainly they later had deaconesses in that church, Philippians 4:2

And yes if God wanted women to preach He would have said so!

If he DIDN'T want women to preach he would have said so, that's my point.
If it was a command, he would have made it very clear - as in the OT, where people knew for certain what the covenant was and what God expected of them, so there was no excuse when they broke it. Adam knew for certain what God had commanded him; he had heard it directly from God himself. Paul says that sin came into the world through Adam, not through Eve.
If it were God's command and will that women should not preach, or proclaim, his word, Jesus would not only have clearly told us, but led by example. How did Jesus, the founder of the church, treat women? He allowed them to take his word to others, and even chose them to do so. Contrary to the customs of the day, he allowed them to listen to, and learn from, him, Luke 10:39-42. (Male student Rabbis sat at the feet of their masters, learning from them.) Women were said to be unreliable witnesses and could not testify in court - Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection, and then go and tell the men.

But when He makes a very unambiguous statement, we should pay attention!

All the debates, on these forums and in the church as a whole, should tell you that that is clearly not an unambiguous statement.

Well I will tell you what my old pastor told me, if you can be happy doing anything else other than pastoring-then do it! But if you are compelled and HAVE to pastor then you know it is a calling. Pastors are under far greater scrutiny from God for they are the under shpeherds of the flocks of God.

Like I said, I am not a Pastor.
I am called to preach the Gospel - 1 Corinthians 9:16.

And you do not even realize that you are following one of your natural inclinations by usurping authoriity in the church!

I am not usurping anything - see the definition below that you, yourself, gave.

Okay- straight from a greek dictionary, the different uses of the word we translate as usurp:

Transliteration
authenteō
Pronunciation
au-then-te'-ō αὐτός (G846) and an obsolete hentes (a worker)
Greek Inflections of αὐθεντέω αὐθεντεῖν — 1x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: usurp authority over (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage G846 and an obsolete ἕντης héntēs (a worker); to act of oneself,

I am not acting of myself.
I was called by God, that call has been recognised by the church and I have been licensed, by the church, to preach.

i.e. (figuratively) dominate:—usurp authority over.

How am I dominating over men, when it is men who trained me, licensed me and who, humanly speaking, are in authority over me - male Minster, male Superintendent, male chair of district (like a Bishop) and male president of the conference (like an Archbishop)?

1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself

Nope, not done that.

2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic

I do not do that.

3. an absolute master

Master over who - congregations?
How is standing up to lead worship and delivering a God inspired message - with the help of the Holy Spirit and various men who wrote the concordances that I use; at the request and invitation of the congregations, being an "absolute master" over them? A lot of the services I lead are in churches other than my own, so they don't see me unless I am preaching there; how, then, am I an "absolute master" over them?
How is saying "this is how this passage spoke to me, but if God spoke to you in another way, or said something different to you through it; listen to him", and encouraging people to search the Scriptures for themselves, being an "absolute master" over them?

4. to govern, exercise dominion over one

I don't govern over anyone.

But thank you for the definition.

As it is not saying murder or absolute master 2 and 4 are the biblical standard as set forth in places like Genesis 3 and Ephesians 5

I don't do either.

 

[nolidad]

But it's not.
"I [Paul] do not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man", is not at all the same as saying "the Lord commands that no woman in the church anywhere will ever teach a man or lead Bible studies" - not even remotely the same.

That is straining at gnats. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. So he laid down a rule that women are not allowed to teach. As the one challenging Pauls order, it is up to you to empirically shopw it no longer applies!

If it was a clear command - and Paul was an intelligent guy, he could have written it the way I just did, or made it REALLY clear, there would be no disagreement. Unless you're suggesting that some of your sisters in Christ are so disobedient/selfish/egotistical/obsessed with equal rights (delete as applicable) that they deliberately disobey Scripture so that they can do their own thing.
Presumably all these women are really clever too, as they persuade male clergy, theologians etc to train and ordain them?

Well I don't know what is in peoples heart wehen they decide to forego a clear teaching of Scripture. some can also be honestly mistaught and wish to do well. But Paul is clear. He does not allow women to teach nor usurp authority on the church!

I'm not a Pastor, I've already said that. I am a lay preacher - not ordained.

So all you do is preach? Your preaching is not for the maturing of the saints? You do not counsel and exhort and encourage people? Has your church granted you that authority? Then once again the difference is miniscule. You are shepherding people by your preaching and recognized position. The ritual structure and difference is man made and not God! You still fall under the same condemnations of James 3 as an ordained preacher. As do I as a lay precher/teacher.

Acts of the Apostles 18:26

That is personal ministry and is not prohibited. You should know the difference if you hold such a high level in your church.

Again, it's an interpretation. Many clergy do not see it that way.

Many clergy also feel it is just an interpretation banning openly practicing gays and lesbians from being members of the church, or that it is even a sin. They are just as wrong as well. And saying a woman shoud not teach is not an interpretation, it is accepting the Inspired Word of Scripture as it is written and not adding opinion to it.

Only if you interpret 1 Timothy 2:12 in that way.
Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11 how a woman should pray and prophesy. In 1 Corinthians 14 he teaches that those who speak in tongues and prophesy should do so only one at at a time - and does not say "obviously women are excluded from this". In 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 he lists the gifts of the Spirit - which include teacher and pastor - again, he does not say that these are not for the women.

So because each epistle does not exhaustively list each and every item, to you it doesn't count? Paul didn't say murder was wrong in every epistle, according to yoru logic here that must mean it is okay then because he didn't prohibit it in every leter Gos inspired to become the New Testament!

So you don't feel that a woman who says to a man, "you are a sinner. This is what the Bible says about sin, this is what God did about it and this is how we can be reconciled to God and have eternal life", is teaching him or having some kind of authority over him?

Paul in Timothy was talking about when the chjurch was assembled, not individully outside of an assembly of the saints. But as a preacher, you should know that!

I know.
But if it was never God's will or plan that a woman should be in leadership over men, then he would never have called them to be so. Deborah was a judge in Israel and a prophetess - sorting out men's disputes and proclaiming the word of the Lord. The Lord raised up judges, and while they ruled, people were turned towards God. When the judge died, the people fell away until the next one was raised up.. Huldah was a prophetess, whom male priests CHOSE to consult when the King wanted a word from the Lord. They didn't have to; they could have gone to Jeremiah.

Now you are just being disingenuous. Many practices in the old are not carried over to the new. And I never implied the word never!

How then do you define "teaching"?

Once again you are trying to muddy the Scriptures by a straw man. God did not ever prohibit a woman from teaching a man biblical truths, When God inspired Paul to write this to Timothy- it is clear in its context that it was in the church setting. Women can be CEO's, evangelize men, even take men home and show them biblical truths, can be educators in regular schools, etc.etc.etc. They just cannot teach men while the church is assembled.

In the context Paul wrote teaching is:

When the church is called to assemble, taking the leadership position of expounding the scriptures and giving the exhortations to apply to the whole assembly.

So you don't feel that a woman who says to a man, "you are a sinner. This is what the Bible says about sin, this is what God did about it and this is how we can be reconciled to God and have eternal life", is teaching him or having some kind of authority over him?

Not in the context laid out in Scripture, no! If she seeks to disciple him in the faith- that is usurping authority. But sharing the gospel and conversing with a man in and of itself is not necessarily wrong.

Not at all.
My point was that because they were so fixed in their traditions and what they thought Scripture said about the Messiah, they missed what God was doing right in front of them.

Same applies here.
What God is doing today, is calling women to preach and be ordained. As God will not contradict his word, that tells me that, clearly, he cannot have forbidden this in his word.
But people who can't accept that God can call women to be ordained and preachers, dismiss what is happening today, writing off the women who preach as being disobedient. They are so convinced that the way the read Scripture is the correct way, they won't consider what is happening in front of them.

To be continued tomorrow (possibly); I need sleep.

False comparison! They are ordaining unrepentant practicing gays and lesbians to shepherd churches right on front of us today! Does that mean that God has okayed homosexuality now and it is no longer sin? Just because people do something today does not mean God is approving it! Especially when He clearly , through the writers He inspired to pen the New Testament prohibited an action.

There is a growing body of "preachers" who say aborting an unborn human child is not wrong, is that God doing something today as well that those who believe that All Scripture is given by inspiriation og God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, still believe is murder?

 

[nolidad]

It was the "only recently" bit that I was challenging.
Throughout history, it seems, women have preached, taught and worked in, and for, the church.

Well as recently is a relative term and I was referring to it becoming a common practice and not isolated instances as was what you pointed out.

I am neither - I know what I have been called to.
But it can feel like an attack when someone who doesn't now you says "you are NOT called to preach". That was not a suggestion or advice, but a dogmatic statement and flat out denial.

And there are many who say your calling is also on the basis of feeling and not he revealed Word of God.

So I guess you believe women can also be Pastors, as long as if they are lesbians they are the husband of only one wife?

I am not acting of myself.
I was called by God, that call has been recognised by the church and I have been licensed, by the church, to preach.

So you are in an official capacity then! And it was recoginzed by A church not THE church. Definitely not by the Constitution of the Body of CHrist aka the New Testament.

How am I dominating over men, when it is men who trained me, licensed me and who, humanly speaking, are in authority over me - male Minster, male Superintendent, male chair of district (like a Bishop) and male president of the conference (like an Archbishop)?

You won't listen to me define how thwt is taking wrongful authority over men. But just know while this is not sanctioned by God, it is not an overt evil like homosexuality or murder etc. But you should know that all the work you have done as a sanctioned lay preacher will be burned up at the Bema seat for it is not the will of God. That is Scripture.

I do not do that.

Yes you are. For if you truly sought obedience to God, you would not seek to carve out caveats to His clear unambiguous teaching.

Master over who - congregations?
How is standing up to lead worship and delivering a God inspired message - with the help of the Holy Spirit and various men who wrote the concordances that I use; at the request and invitation of the congregations, being an "absolute master" over them? A lot of the services I lead are in churches other than my own, so they don't see me unless I am preaching there; how, then, am I an "absolute master" over them?
How is saying "this is how this passage spoke to me, but if God spoke to you in another way, or said something different to you through it; listen to him", and encouraging people to search the Scriptures for themselves, being an "absolute master" over them?

Gods Word (and thus God) would not call them inspired by Him! they may be very powerful messages filled with many wonderful exhortations to live godly lives etc.etc etc. . But being one who has taught under the authority of the leadership of ordained pastors for over 38 years now, I know that individuals can use their biblical knowledge accrued and preach in the flesh and not the spirit! Even prach powerful and moving messages! god will honor His Word, but we will not recieve any acclaim from Him for being out of order.

I don't do either.

Just because you fail to recognize that you do , does not equate to your not holding authority over men spiritually. As a preacher, people look to you as an authority of spiritual matters and thus you are in a position to have authority by reason of the commissioned position you hold.

Marilyn Hickey, Joyce Meyers and other women who pastor churches or teach and preach in the public airwaves may be marvelous people. Live lives of great godliness and may even see thousands come to Christ through their preaching! God will always honor His Word, but that does not mean that God will honor the indiviual wielding His Word. These women will lose everything done as preacher/teachers. It may be approved of by a sect of the church, but not by God and His Word and that in the end is what is all that matters.

 

[Strong in Him]

That is straining at gnats.

No, some people have a very literal reading of Scripture.
I'm saying that if you're of that view (and I don't know if you are), Scripture says "I" - Paul, and not "God demands".

Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. So he laid down a rule that women are not allowed to teach. As the one challenging Pauls order, it is up to you to empirically shopw it no longer applies!

It's up to you to show that it is even a rule from Paul, never mind a command from God.

Well I don't know what is in peoples heart wehen they decide to forego a clear teaching of Scripture.

You either haven't read, or cannot answer, my statement that it is not a clear teaching of Scripture.

But Paul is clear. He does not allow women to teach nor usurp authority on the church!

He doesn't even say that; he says A womAn.
And you have not explained how women can "usurp authority" when that authority is given by God and recognised by the church.

So all you do is preach?

And lead worship.
A Methodist Local (lay) Preacher takes the whole service - choosing hymns, taking prayers, children's talk and sermon.

Your preaching is not for the maturing of the saints? You do not counsel and exhort and encourage people? Has your church granted you that authority?

Yes it is, and yes they have.
That's what a sermon is.

You are shepherding people by your preaching and recognized position.

No. I'm expounding the word and giving some practical applications for life - NOT telling people that they have to accept what I say and then put it into practice the way I tell them to.

Christians round here have minds of their own - they are quite capable of telling me if a) they hated my sermon, b) they disagreed with it and c) believe I am in the wrong ministry. No one yet has - that includes the clergy.

That is personal ministry and is not prohibited. You should know the difference if you hold such a high level in your church.

If God has said that women should not teach, women should not teach.
Where does Scripture say that God's "commands" can be broken as long as they are in private and not in public?

And saying a woman shoud not teach is not an interpretation, it is accepting the Inspired Word of Scripture as it is written and not adding opinion to it.

How does Scripture define teaching, then?
Paul teaches about the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:28, Romans 12:6-8 and Ephesians 4:11. These gifts include teaching - he doesn't say that gift isn't for women.
Prophetesses who proclaimed God's word and gave it to men, were teaching; teaching them God's will.
Priscilla taught Apollos - doesn't matter that it was in private, unless you're saying that there is a difference between applying God's word in private and applying it in public?

So because each epistle does not exhaustively list each and every item, to you it doesn't count?

No, I'm saying that if it was absolutely God's will that a woman should NEVER preach in church - in whatever age and culture - he would have made it very clear. Paul would have repeated it to all the churches so that he could be sure that they knew, and he had taught them, God's will.
Yet he said nothing about this to the church at Rome - where he commended his many female co-workers and acknowledged their deacon. Nor to the church at Philippi, which was probably co founded by women and which had deaconesses; nor to the churches at Ephesus, Galatia - when he was furious that they were believing a false gospel - nor at Thessalonica.

Moreover, not only did Jesus not teach this, he broke all of society's rules and expectations about who women were and how they should be treated. He said that they should not be divorced on a whim, because they are made in the image of God as men are. He called a ritually unclean woman, "daughter". He told a woman who had been caught breaking the Jewish law that he did not condemn her. He allowed women to learn from him and follow him. He revealed to a woman that he was the Messiah, and allowed her to go off and tell the men of her town. He chose Mary Magdalene to be the first witness to the resurrection - note, not the men who were hiding in fear; a lowly woman who was considered to be an unreliable witness.
And how do some sections of his church follow his example and love as he loved them? By telling women who dare to proclaim God's word to sit down, shut up and repent of their disobedience!
Unbelievable. I bet the devil loves these sorts of debates.

Paul didn't say murder was wrong in every epistle, according to yoru logic here that must mean it is okay then because he didn't prohibit it in every leter Gos inspired to become the New Testament!

Paul tells us to love our neighbour as ourselves, Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:4 - as Jesus did. Murder is against God's law and the law of the land, and murdering your neighbour is not showing them love.
Paul didn't say "do not murder your neighbour" and then go off and commit murder. Whereas he said that a woman should not teach and should be silent, but allowed women to prophesy and knew that Priscilla taught Apollos.

Paul in Timothy was talking about when the chjurch was assembled, not individully outside of an assembly of the saints. But as a preacher, you should know that!

So you reckon God's word can be broken as long as it's not in public?

Now you are just being disingenuous. Many practices in the old are not carried over to the new. And I never implied the word never!

So God's changed his mind, then?
He called Deborah to be judge over Israel, allowed women to proclaim his word, and later changed his mind and decided he wasn't going to allow it?

Unless he has changed his mind about his will, he should never have allowed this to happen.

God did not ever prohibit a woman from teaching a man biblical truths,

So women CAN teach men then - as long as it's not in a public building that we call a church?

Women can be CEO's, evangelize men, even take men home and show them biblical truths, can be educators in regular schools, etc.etc.etc.

So women CAN be in authority over men, then?
They can do all this in the communities in which they live, but when they enter a building that we call a church, they have to forget their God given gifts, sit down and be silent?
You're making a compelling case for women never going to church again.

Not in the context laid out in Scripture, no! If she seeks to disciple him in the faith- that is usurping authority.

Priscilla did that.
I would be surprised if Paul's female co-workers who worked so hard for the Gospel, didn't do that too.

But sharing the gospel and conversing with a man in and of itself is not necessarily wrong.

Some have said on these forums that that is wrong, because telling a man that he is a sinner and teaching him what Scripture says, breaks God's "command" in 1 Timothy 2:12 that a woman cannot teach or have authority over.

For such an, apparently, clear verse there are a number of interpretations.

 

[Strong in Him]

And there are many who say your calling is also on the basis of feeling and not he revealed Word of God.

They can say what they like.
I have not shared my call with them, so they don't know; I, my church and the Lord, do.

So I guess you believe women can also be Pastors, as long as if they are lesbians they are the husband of only one wife?

A woman cannot be a husband.
Paul says that a deacon should be the husband of one wife - ONE, not many.
He doesn't say that female deacons should be the wife of only one husband - women still had few rights; it was impossible for a woman to have more than one husband.

So you are in an official capacity then! And it was recoginzed by A church not THE church. Definitely not by the Constitution of the Body of CHrist aka the New Testament.

In your opinion.
The Methodists, URCs, Anglicans, Salvation Army and maybe Baptists recognise and allow female preachers. The SA do not have ordained clergy, but the others do, and most allow women to be in that role if God has called them.

You won't listen to me define how thwt is taking wrongful authority over men. /QUOTE]

I don't understand why you say that it is taking authority over men.

But you should know that all the work you have done as a sanctioned lay preacher will be burned up at the Bema seat for it is not the will of God. That is Scripture.

In your opinion.
I preach the same Gospel as men preach, and probably use the same commentaries and resources.
You reckon that proclaiming Jesus, encouraging people to follow Jesus, remain in Jesus and teach others to follow Jesus is going to be burned up as "useless work"? I don't think so.

Yes you are. For if you truly sought obedience to God, you would not seek to carve out caveats to His clear unambiguous teaching.

You either choose to ignore, or don't understand, that this is not clear, unambiguous teaching.
Look how many posts we've spent debating it.
No doubt you would say that I'm only debating it because I'm disobedient and want to justify what I'm doing - but you'd be very wrong.

Just because you fail to recognize that you do , does not equate to your not holding authority over men spiritually. As a preacher, people look to you as an authority of spiritual matters and thus you are in a position to have authority by reason of the commissioned position you hold.

But that doesn't mean I'm always right in how I apply the word - just as you aren't.
People have minds of their own - they don't have to agree with what I say.

Marilyn Hickey, Joyce Meyers and other women who pastor churches or teach and preach in the public airwaves may be marvelous people. Live lives of great godliness and may even see thousands come to Christ through their preaching! God will always honor His Word, but that does not mean that God will honor the indiviual wielding His Word. These women will lose everything done as preacher/teachers.

In your opinion.
Or you may one day find yourself standing behind them and hear the words "well done good and faithful servant".

It may be approved of by a sect of the church, but not by God and His Word and that in the end is what is all that matters.

If God didn't approve he wouldn't have called me to preach, wouldn't inspire me when I preach and would tell me if he didn't want me to preach any longer - which he hasn't yet done.
That's all that matters.

This doesn't affect my, or other women's, salvation. If you don't agree with women preaching and teaching men in those buildings that you call churches, don't go to a church that allows it.

 

[nolidad]

No, some people have a very literal reading of Scripture.
I'm saying that if you're of that view (and I don't know if you are), Scripture says "I" - Paul, and not "God demands".

And who was Paul but one of the founding apostles. It was His teaching throughout the churches. And he defended it from SCripture not culture!

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

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

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

So just show me a greater authority than Paul that says woman should be asllowed to teach and then your arguments have some relavency!

Jesus never forbade recreational drug use- so is that okay? Nor drunkeness, so is that okay because He never directly said it!

It's up to you to show that it is even a rule from Paul, never mind a command from God.

I did! It is from that little book called the Bible! Now it is up to you to show that it wasn't inspired by God or even written by Paul!

You either haven't read, or cannot answer, my statement that it is not a clear teaching of Scripture.

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

1 Corinthians 14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Tell me which of these words you do not understand or see clearly and I will explain!

He doesn't even say that; he says A womAn.
And you have not explained how women can "usurp authority" when that authority is given by God and recognised by the church.

Usurp- even in biblical times isd a wrongful taking authority. When a woman teaches in the assembly- she is usurping authority over the man!

And lead worship.
A Methodist Local (lay) Preacher takes the whole service - choosing hymns, taking prayers, children's talk and sermon.

Well a woman can do the first 3, but the 4th is forbidden by Scripture in the general assembly

Yes it is, and yes they have.
That's what a sermon is.

Then you are a leader in the church. And you are forbidden by Scripture to teach men! In the assembly.

No. I'm expounding the word and giving some practical applications for life - NOT telling people that they have to accept what I say and then put it into practice the way I tell them to.

Christians round here have minds of their own - they are quite capable of telling me if a) they hated my sermon, b) they disagreed with it and c) believe I am in the wrong ministry. No one yet has - that includes the clergy.

So then what are you teaching them then? Do you not believe yor messages are inspired by God and profitable to the congregation? When I teach life application, I let people know there is not always one formual to work thigns out. When I teach doctrine- It is binding upon all (If I teach correctly)

In your opinion.
The Methodists, URCs, Anglicans, Salvation Army and maybe Baptists recognise and allow female preachers. The SA do not have ordained clergy, but the others do, and most allow women to be in that role if God has called them.

And some of them recognize lesbisan and gays to be pastors. Do you agree with them?

How does Scripture define teaching, then?
Paul teaches about the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:28, Romans 12:6-8 and Ephesians 4:11. These gifts include teaching - he doesn't say that gift isn't for women.
Prophetesses who proclaimed God's word and gave it to men, were teaching; teaching them God's will.
Priscilla taught Apollos - doesn't matter that it was in private, unless you're saying that there is a difference between applying God's word in private and applying it in public?

Paul would have forbade the prohetesses from prophesying the local assembly. His Words about that are clear.

Priscilla did that.
I would be surprised if Paul's female co-workers who worked so hard for the Gospel, didn't do that too.

Not privately. But under the authority of her husband, Aquila, and we can only guess how much she was involved with direct teaching. I hope you know the difference between discipling someone, and sharing parts of the faith. One is simple talking, the other requires submission to ones authority and sitting and learning under that person.

If God has said that women should not teach, women should not teach.
Where does Scripture say that God's "commands" can be broken as long as they are in private and not in public?

You word it that way simply because you pull the relevant SCriptures out of their important context!

No, I'm saying that if it was absolutely God's will that a woman should NEVER preach in church - in whatever age and culture - he would have made it very clear. Paul would have repeated it to all the churches so that he could be sure that they knew, and he had taught them, God's will.
Yet he said nothing about this to the church at Rome - where he commended his many female co-workers and acknowledged their deacon. Nor to the church at Philippi, which was probably co founded by women and which had deaconesses; nor to the churches at Ephesus, Galatia - when he was furious that they were believing a false gospel - nor at Thessalonica.

Well God never absolutely forbade gays, lesbians and pedophiles form being pastor/teachers in teh church, so according to your logic, you would find ot okay for them to teach in the church in an official capacity.

Moreover, not only did Jesus not teach this, he broke all of society's rules and expectations about who women were and how they should be treated. He said that they should not be divorced on a whim, because they are made in the image of God as men are. He called a ritually unclean woman, "daughter". He told a woman who had been caught breaking the Jewish law that he did not condemn her. He allowed women to learn from him and follow him. He revealed to a woman that he was the Messiah, and allowed her to go off and tell the men of her town. He chose Mary Magdalene to be the first witness to the resurrection - note, not the men who were hiding in fear; a lowly woman who was considered to be an unreliable witness.
And how do some sections of his church follow his example and love as he loved them? By telling women who dare to proclaim God's word to sit down, shut up and repent of their disobedience!
Unbelievable. I bet the devil loves these sorts of debates.

Yes Jesus elevated woman far above society viewed them! But boy He also had a perfect chance to prove woman could be teachers if He picked one as an apostle now didn't He? But He didn't. Even the Apostles did not appoint a deaconess when they established that office.

If we believe that Paul was taught directly from Jesus Himself as Paul claimed, then He taught Paul things for the gentiles, seeing hos Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. the Apostles to the Jews they didn't elevate women to official offices in the church either!

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Maybe they forgot that one in the early centuries???? So the church wasn't observing woman teaching????

And how do some sections of his church follow his example and love as he loved them? By telling women who dare to proclaim God's word to sit down, shut up and repent of their disobedience!
Unbelievable. I bet the devil loves these sorts of debates.

I will take that bet. He loves the debate because he is the author of woman in offices in the church. But Jesus said if you love me OBEY ME! So If we have some feeling we should verify if it is valid according to the Inspired Word of God given to the whole church!

 

[nolidad]

They can say what they like.
I have not shared my call with them, so they don't know; I, my church and the Lord, do.

Well Gods Inspired Word says you have misread the Lord.

It's up to you to show that it is even a rule from Paul, never mind a command from God.

WOW! How can we debate when you can't even understand basic english? I suffer not! Paul does not allow! And gives the fall as the reason. Maybe we should end this so you can learn the English Language!

You either haven't read, or cannot answer, my statement that it is not a clear teaching of Scripture.

It is only unclear for those with an agenda or wearing rose colored glasses.

He doesn't even say that; he says A womAn.
And you have not explained how women can "usurp authority" when that authority is given by God and recognised by the church.

Well that is only for those who decide to use extra biblical doctrine to establish their practices.

A woman cannot be a husband.
Paul says that a deacon should be the husband of one wife - ONE, not many.
He doesn't say that female deacons should be the wife of only one husband - women still had few rights; it was impossible for a woman to have more than one husband.

And the same qualification for pastors!

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Well show from empirical documents that women could not have more than one man! But better yet show where Paul taught that women could hold positions of authority in the church!

 

[Lost4words]

Scripture. Greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted

 

[Strong in Him]

Maybe we should end this so you can learn the English Language!

No, but I'll be glad to end it so that you can learn some manners.
Catch up with you sometime next year.

 

[nolidad]

Scripture. Greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted

With all due respect, that is an answer that says nothing.

 

[nolidad]

No, but I'll be glad to end it so that you can learn some manners.
Catch up with you sometime next year.

So being bluntly honest with you is what you conside ill mannered? OK then! See you in 2021

 

[Spingle]

Yes, please.

Also, they must not lead or control their husbands.

The New Testament view of society is patriarchal.

Few will realize this!

 

[Spingle]

Trousers are not exclusively man's clothing.

All people in ancient times were wearing skirts, both men and women. The point of the verse is that man should not dress to deliberately look like a woman and vice versa - transvestites.

Women only started wearing trousers in defiance. And no, everyone wasn't just wearing skirts. 'Twas a bit more complicated than that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Women only started wearing trousers in defiance. And no, everyone wasn't just wearing skirts. 'Twas a bit more complicated than that.

They also protested to get the right to vote out of "defiance". Just like those of African descent were "defiant" when they sought to have the same rights as white people in the United States. And just like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to the image of Nebudchanezzar out of "defiance".

Defiance isn't wrong when it is about human dignity and refusing to put up with oppression.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was defiant against the Nazis, and became a martyr for it.
Martin Luther was defiant, and he received a bull of excommunication for it.
William Tyndale was defiant against King Henry VIII, and that eventually got him killed.

Women are people. And deserve nothing less than the fullness of actual human personhood.

St. Augustine reminds us lex iniusta non est lex, "an unjust law is no law".

-CryptoLutheran