Tattooed Theist
New member
I've never heart a translational argument for it, only a cultural, which I support.
Woman have every ability and gift from God to preach as men do.
I'd be interested to hear where you get that from?
General question for all TOL religious people
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
I've never heart a translational argument for it, only a cultural, which I support.
Woman have every ability and gift from God to preach as men do.
I'd be interested to hear where you get that from?
Tattooed Theist
New member
Semantics much?
How is what I said untrue at all?
She taught a man, in ways of the scripture, therefore a slap in the face to Paul's directive IF we interpret it that woman are not to preach.
Stay focused on the topic, not the wording bud. Thats an easy way to derail a conversation that isn't going your way.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Not quite. To claim there is no succession among Protestantism would play into Romanism.
The pericope 2 Cor 5:11-21 is all about the ministry of reconciliation proclaimed by its ministers, ambassadors for another, Jesus Christ. Note the use of "you" contrasted with "us" in verse 2 Cor 5:12. Later in 2 Cor 5:18-19 Paul speaks of the ministry of reconciliation given to "us", then the "therefore, we {the ministers of reconciliation} are ambassadors".
Hence, the Reformers rejected any need of episcopal succession of Rome, and merely doctrinal succession of the Anabaptists. Yes doctrinal succession is vital, but we Protestants emerging from the Reformation also hold that elders must be lawfully called, thus properly ordained from the established church. Such ordination is traceable all the way back to the apostles, and recognizes exceptions under situations of unavoidable necessity, which legitimized the calls of some of the Reformers, such as when the institutional church is apostate.
Thus, Reformed churches can trace their formal ordinations back to the apostles. And the Reformed warn folks about attending churches wherein the ministers therein are not lawfully called.
AMR
You think? Then, you're offering your opinion only, right?
musterion
Well-known member
I see how you work now.
musterion
Well-known member
Which brings us full circle right back to square one.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You specifically appealed to the negative impact upon evangelical approaches. Are you reading your own posts? :idunno:
Just as in your appeal to the Priscilla account, wherein you fail to see the specifics of the passage that it was a private conversation, claiming she was teaching men in Ephesus and later complain about semantics to musterion. Well, semantics, like the word "teaching" in the ecclesial context is important, despite your casual approaches. :AMR:
Have you taken the time to read my initial post related to this discussion wherein links are provided to more thorough discussions of all the usual talking points? Rather than just winging it as you go, consider this is not a matter that is devoid of careful examination by those that have come before us. It is not as if your "yea, buts" (as in Priscilla), have not been anticipated by other godly men in the past.
By the way, please do not omit the quote tags when quoting another's post. These tags allow the readers to click the post being quoted in your response such that they can navigate directly to the full text.
AMR
In 1 Timothy 2:12 KJV Paul explains, "But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
To usurp authority over the man in the NT context refers to a woman subject to the authority of a man.
What man?
In the context of the Jewish culture extant in Paul's day a woman was subject to her husband, or if unmarried she was subject to her father or brother or whoever was responsible for her care and welfare.
The Greek gune could mean woman of wife depending on the context.
Paul's instruction was, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church - he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24 NET)
In the first century a woman was to be subject to the man who was responsible for her and entrusted with her care.
Zeke
Well-known member
And none of that has to do with diet or any other religious/culture taboo, In the spirit there is neither male or female Luke 8:21, all that outward lingo is transferred into our conscience the temple which sits on you're shoulders, secular history is time based which is fine for the rudimentary teaching but once the revelation of Christ happens within the bed time stories are set aside.
Tattooed Theist
New member
[MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION]
That's been covered. Don't add anything new
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
While there may be plenty of disagreement among various church groups who will argue that the cultural context of this and related passages is no longer relevant, Scripture teaches the situation is still valid. Elsewhere we read:
1 Cor 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
1 Cor 14:35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
The instructions which Paul is giving to the Corinthian saints do not apply to them alone. These are the same instructions that have been addressed to all the churches of the saints. The uniform testimony of the NT is that while women have many valuable ministries, it is not given to them to have a public ministry to the whole church. Women are entrusted with the unspeakably important work of the home and of raising children. But they are not allowed to speak publicly in the assembly. Theirs is to be a place of submission to the man. This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning.
The expression as the law also says has reference to the woman's being submissive to the man. This is clearly taught in the law, which here probably means the Pentateuch primarily. Gen 3:16, for instance, says “your desire shall be for your husband. And he shall rule over you.”
It is often contended that what Paul is forbidding in this verse is for the women to chatter or gossip while the service is going on. However, such an interpretation is not supportable. The word here translated speak (laleo) did not mean to chatter in Koine Greek. The same word is used of God in verse 1 Cor 14:21 of this chapter, and in Heb 1:1. It means to speak authoritatively.
Considering 1 Cor 14:35: Indeed, women are not permitted to ask questions publicly in the church. If they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at home. Some women might try to evade the previous prohibition against speaking by asking questions. It is possible to teach by the simple act of questioning others. So this verse closes any such loophole or objection.
There is, therefore, no inconsistency between the argument in 1 Cor. 11 and the statement here, and the force of the whole is, that on every consideration it was improper, and to be expressly prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to be inspired, but to all. It does not refer merely to acts of public preaching, but to all acts of speaking, or even asking questions, when the church is assembled for public worship.
No rule in the New Testament is more positive than this, and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken; compare 1 Tim 2:11-12.
If it is asked how this applies to an unmarried woman or a widow, the answer is that the Scriptures do not try to take up each individual case, but merely set forth general principles. If a woman does not have a husband, she could ask her father, her brother, or one of the elders of the church. Actually, this may be translated, “Let them ask their men-folks at home.” The basic rule to be remembered is that it is shameful for women to speak in church.
Looking at verses 36, and 37:
1 Corinthians 14:36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
1 Cor 14:36: Apparently the Apostle Paul realized that his teaching here would cause considerable contention. How right he was! To meet any arguments, he uses irony in verse 36 by asking: Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? In other words, if the Corinthians professed to know more about these matters than the Apostle, he would ask them if they, as a church, produced the word of God, or if they were the only ones who had received it. By their attitude they seemed to set themselves up as an official authority on these matters. But the facts are that no church originated the word of God, and no church has exclusive rights to it.
1 Cor 14:37: In connection with all the foregoing instructions, the apostle here emphasizes that they are not his own ideas or interpretations, but that they are the commandments of the Lord, and any man who is a prophet of the Lord or who is truly spiritual will acknowledge that that is the case. This verse is a sufficient answer to those who insist that some of Paul's teachings, especially those concerning women, reflected his own prejudices. These matters are not Paul's private view; they are the commandments of the Lord.
The role of evangelist is one the church commissions. It would be just as the church ordains its other male officers. Women may accompany missionaries and evangelists to serve in supporting roles without running afoul of Scripture's prohibitions.
Nothing in Scripture prohibits anyone from sharing the testimony of their faith with others and providing answers for that which they hold dear. But that is very different from teaching and exhorting roles reserved for those so commissioned by the church.
AMR
That may be your translation but that is not the issue Paul is addressing.
There is no rank in God's church, sex is irrelevant as is ethnicity.
A married woman is accountable to no other man, not even her father after she is married. And a married woman is only subject to her husband in the Lord. It is a woman's prerogative to have a totally different relationship with the Father and Son than her husband if they do not agree.
Furthermore women can now vote, not so in the first century. A woman may vote for a different person than her husband.
And then there was Phoebe...
Right Divider
Body part
Acts 18:2 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:2) And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla;(because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome
and came unto them.
and came unto them.
Acts 18:26 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
THEY (the HUSBAND and HIS wife) took him UNTO THEM and expounded.
This is NOT a woman in charge of publicly teaching men.
Right Divider
Body part
What if they're both full of baloney?
Right Divider
Body part
So who is currently the Protestant Pope?Which is why that business about ordained succession is important.
AMR
musterion
Well-known member
Dat's what I wanna know.
musterion
Well-known member
Beef baloney? Cuz if it's pork, some prots say they're under Law so no can do pig meat.