What is the criteria

[freeatlast]

As everyone is aware often times, more often then I like, we hear someone say about a particular scripture that it was given because of culture and does not apply today. If this is true then I would like those who hold to a more liberal, or not as literal for all times, understanding of scripture to explain what should be the criteria for determining such when scripture does not suggest such?

An example is, but not limited to 1Timothy 2:12 and 1Timothy 3:1-13

By the way I am not trying to bait anyone. This is an honest question and perhaps some of us can better see where another is coming from.

 

[matt wade]

I don't hold a liberal view, but I can give you an honest answer.

They decide a particular scripture does not apply today when it doesn't conform what they believe is "fair" in today's society. They trust in Scripture only when it suits their purposes and when it doesn't, they twist it so that it will.

 

[freeatlast]

I don't hold a liberal view, but I can give you an honest answer.

They decide a particular scripture does not apply today when it doesn't conform what they believe is "fair" in today's society. They trust in Scripture only when it suits their purposes and when it doesn't, they twist it so that it will.

Matt I thank you for the reply, but I also think that this is exactly why we argue with them on matters and no one is convinced. I feel the same as you stated on this, but I would like to hear from someone who holds these views and see if what you and I believe about this is true or not and are they using some method that is justifiable that we should know about?

 

[Crabtownboy]

As everyone is aware often times, more often then I like, we hear someone say about a particular scripture that it was given because of culture and does not apply today. If this is true then I would like those who hold to a more liberal, or not as literal for all times, understanding of scripture to explain what should be the criteria for determining such when scripture does not suggest such?

An example is, but not limited to 1Timothy 2:12 and 1Timothy 3:1-13

By the way I am not trying to bait anyone. This is an honest question and perhaps some of us can better see where another is coming from.

In I Timothy 2:12 the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. A more accurate translation in English is: “I am not presently allowing" or “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men”

We know that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5).

We know that women functioned in the Church as deaconesses,. i.e. Phoebe.
We know that Paul called Junia a disciple.
Thus we know, that Paul did not prohibit women to speak in all places and churches.

1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat, a threat from the gnostics. It is in the same class as Paul's writing about women wearing a head covering. This also was aimed at a specific problem in Corinth.

 

[webdog]

I don't hold a liberal view, but I can give you an honest answer.

They decide a particular scripture does not apply today when it doesn't conform what they believe is "fair" in today's society. They trust in Scripture only when it suits their purposes and when it doesn't, they twist it so that it will.

I disagree. Do the women in your church wear head coverings? Do you cut the hair at your temple? Do you blend fabrics? Do you avoid boilng a goat in it's mother's milk? Do you keep the 7th day Sabbath? Do you keep your oxe from grazing while treading? Do you only eat animals that chew the cud with split hooves? Do you still perform animal sacrifices?

Clearly cultural and not having anything to do with what's "fair", no?

 

[Amy.G]

In 1 Tim 2:12, Paul uses the creation of man and woman as the basis for his instruction. That is why in this case it cannot be cultural.

 

[freeatlast]

In I Timothy 2:12 the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. A more accurate translation in English is: “I am not presently allowing" or “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men”

We know that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5).

We know that women functioned in the Church as deaconesses,. i.e. Phoebe.
We know that Paul called Junia a disciple.
Thus we know, that Paul did not prohibit women to speak in all places and churches.

1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat, a threat from the gnostics. It is in the same class as Paul's writing about women wearing a head covering. This also was aimed at a specific problem in Corinth.

So you are saying that you hold these beliefs because the text is translated incorrectly? If that is so I can understand where you come from. However in looking at the Greek the text does not extend itself to give the understanding that you have offered. The tense you point to for "I have decided" is directed at men lifting up holy hands and women adorning themselves in the previous verse. It is not a suggestion for the moment as you seem to say where the guidelines are laid out for the leadership and authority of the church. So is it possible that your desire to see women in leadership is causing you to want or make the scriptures say what they do not?
By the way there is no such thing as a deaconess in scripture. There is no feminine gender in the Greek. The word when applied to a woman would simply be translated server. Also she could teach other women as scripture commands and not violate the 1Tim passage.
However in all this you have still not explained how you arrive at your beliefs since the passages you pointed out do not say what you have stated. Would you like to expand on this?

 

[jaigner]

They decide a particular scripture does not apply today when it doesn't conform what they believe is "fair" in today's society. They trust in Scripture only when it suits their purposes and when it doesn't, they twist it so that it will.

That is absolutely, 100%, false. I don't know a one evangelical who does this.

The issue is not with the authority of Scripture. The Word stands and applies to us today. This issue, though, is that we can't make it say something to us that it didn't originally say. Paul was speaking to a people who lived in an extremely restrictive culture in respect to gender. That does not necessitate that the culture remain that way, nor does it apply universally. The passage is still inspired and useful for us today, but it is not a blanket, overarching statement.

Should we own slaves, as is mentioned other places? There was a time when people used this very same argument about owning slaves, but I don't know any who would hold that we should follow the same logic with slaves today. What about women praying with their heads uncovered?

The Bible doesn't change. The meaning doesn't change. But the audience does. Women, of course, wouldn't be allowed leadership at that time.

Additionally, there are many times when God, in His sovereignty, allows injustices to go on for the sake of the Kingdom. Polygamy anyone?

Also, we see a trajectory throughout the Bible of women gaining more and more freedom in culture. The same cannot be said of homosexuality or something like that.

For further reading, I would suggest the writings of N.T. Wright, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (can't recall the author right now), Beyond Gender Roles by Gilbert Bilazikian (sp?), and Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. Also, Gordon Fee is very helpful

 

[Jerome]

Everyone limits the I Tim 2 passage, it seems. Does it apply only in church, or in other contexts such as government, education, business, etc.? Does Paul say they are only to be silent/submissive to "the man" only in a church context, or is making a universal pronouncement based on a "creation order"?

How do you limit it's meaning?
Do you limit it's application just to church meetings?
Why?

 

[freeatlast]

That is absolutely, 100%, false. I don't know a one evangelical who does this.

The issue is not with the authority of Scripture. The Word stands and applies to us today. This issue, though, is that we can't make it say something to us that it didn't originally say. Paul was speaking to a people who lived in an extremely restrictive culture in respect to gender. That does not necessitate that the culture remain that way, nor does it apply universally. The passage is still inspired and useful for us today, but it is not a blanket, overarching statement.

Should we own slaves, as is mentioned other places? There was a time when people used this very same argument about owning slaves, but I don't know any who would hold that we should follow the same logic with slaves today. What about women praying with their heads uncovered?

The Bible doesn't change. The meaning doesn't change. But the audience does. Women, of course, wouldn't be allowed leadership at that time.

Additionally, there are many times when God, in His sovereignty, allows injustices to go on for the sake of the Kingdom. Polygamy anyone?

Also, we see a trajectory throughout the Bible of women gaining more and more freedom in culture. The same cannot be said of homosexuality or something like that.

For further reading, I would suggest the writings of N.T. Wright, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (can't recall the author right now), Beyond Gender Roles by Gilbert Bilazikian (sp?), and Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. Also, Gordon Fee is very helpful

jaigner let's do this for a moment. Let's say that this WAS given because of culture. Now let's ask a question. WHY? The church met behind close doors. The church was not set up because of culture or is God ever bound by it. The world would not know what was going on and actually could care less. Second why would God be subject to the world? He is not that way today. If you were in a country where the burqa is expected but not forced dress you would probably wear the burqa in public. However in the close doors of the church, just like your house, you could take it off to worship and God would not tell you to put it back on because the world is offended. They would not even see. So how is it a good argument when scripture that does not state that a passage is a cultural mandate becomes a cultural issue as cultural changes instead of holding that the passage is for all times?

 

[freeatlast]

Everyone limits the I Tim 2 passage, it seems. Does it apply only in church, or in other contexts such as government, education, business, etc.? Does Paul say they are only to be silent/submissive to "the man" only in a church context, or is making a universal pronouncement based on a "creation order"?

How do you limit it's meaning?
Do you limit it's application just to church meetings?
Why?

Yes it is just for the church. Pastors and deacons are not ordained by the world.