women teachers

If it leads to the pulpit, then according to scripture it may be a spirit but I do not think it would be THEE SPIRIT.

 

Thanks for the link on Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE).

...Bob

 

Thank you for this link! I'm reading the article by Elizabeth Elliot, and finding it to be the most common sense thing I've ever read on the subject!

 

I've been in churches where both men and women have taught SS classes. I've had competent men SS teachers and incompetent ones. Same with women.

If it came down to a choice of being taught by a man with mediocre understanding of the Bible, and a woman with an outstanding understanding of the Bible, I'd probably sit in the woman's SS class every time.

I want to be taught by someone who knows the material they are teaching on; by someone that can help me grow in my walk and my understanding of the Lord.

However, if all things were equal and the level of "knowledge" were equal in both the man and the woman, then I'd sit in the man's class.

 

There are plenty of women who are Sunday School teachers hear in the UK. BUT it is clear that the term "Sunday School" means something different in the USA. Here, just as secular schools are for children, so are Sunday Schools. I know of some churches that have what they call "All-age Bible Classes" that would seem more like US "Sunday Schools".

 

Seriously? So, despite claiming a firm commitment to Scripture, you would rather be taught Scripture by someone who is far from the most qualified and gifted?

This is a good example of the way biases work. Women are equally as gifted at leadership, and perhaps more gifted in some instances, since they tend to approach leadership collaboratively.

Women are attracted to men, too. I'm not one, but I know for sure this is the case. This approach only feeds the fire here. Any many should be able to be under the leadership of an attractive woman as any woman should be able to be under the leadership of an attractive man.

But many people, including the majority of evangelicals, believe wholeheartedly, through careful prayer and interpretation, that women should be allowed to lead. We depend on the Bible, too. Saying we're so clearly wrong not only over-simplifies the issue, but it excludes many devout, faithful believers.

Nobody is trying to explain Scripture away. That is a definite clouding of the interpretive process.

Nobody is smarter than God. Nobody claims this, either. Homosexuals and women in leadership are as different as night and day.

 

Shhhhh. I'm not supposed to listen to you.

...Bob

 

You asked for advice and it is simple. LEAVE! Here is the reason. A woman is not permitted to teach men, period. You say that she knows scripture, but it is clear she does not obey scripture so why would you want to be led by someone not being led by the Spirit?

 

Bob, I have witnessed you going against Scripture and being cynical about those who embrace it in several threads, actually in many threads, even cynically telling me to go read my NASB instead of watching the video of false healers. This is how you think of Scripture Bob?

That is shameful behavior. I see you have little respect for Gods Word when you do this, and mock those who highly respect it and turn to it.

Shameful behavior on your part. Now I know why you embrace those who preach the prosperity gospel. You seem to be a nihilist.

When one doesn't see the Word as a basis or better, the basis for truth, all is fair.

 

The "fundy side" that refuses to allow women to be preachers appeals to the same cultural explanations "liberals" are accused of using when they say "women must be silent" doesn't actually mean women can't speak at all in church even though that is precisely what it says.

I for one am glad Jesus wasn't a sexist and didn't continue in the sexist attitudes of the day. I am glad that he was able to transcend all the cultural norms of the day and included women, mere property at the time, in the work of the Kingdom of God and empower them with the exact same Holy Spirit to be ministers of reconciliation.

Neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female - yes some would say that this only applies to salvation. Certainly it does apply to salvation, but am I to believe that the work of salvation is done by the Lord without concern for gender, class or race and yet the sharing of the Good News must be done by those highly concerned with gender? I'm sorry that simply doesn't make any sense at all

Is it really salvation if we are saved and then are immediately bound again by a role that is determined by our gender? Salvation is salvation from all the effects of the Fall or it is not really salvation.

 

Rebellion at is highest.

 

Preacher4Truth...

Since you post to me has several errors, I will respond to you. Normally, you are blocked and I only read your posts on occasion.

I have great respect for Scripture. I have probably read through the Bible more than you and most people. But it is the "my way or the highway" interpretation that I disagree with on this board. Yes, I do post my disagreement with such interpretation from time to time and occasionally I use humor to do so.

Yes, in your diatribe against the Street Miracles link, I posted "Don't go to the link. Instead, spend the time reading your new NASB." Whether the healing shown in that link was factual or false, temporary or permanent--you can post your disagreement without all of the repetition.

Posting my opinion of the interpretation of others is not shameful. But it may not be welcomed by the people making those posts.

There is no point in going on like a broken record--the way some do on the recurring threads in these gender threads. I use humor at times. Humor is an effective to say--we heard you, enough is enough.

I do not embrace the prosperity gospel. You missed that one too.

However, I embrace every believer's right to post their beliefs as long as they do not present their beliefs in a dogmatic, never ending fashion. The new member had ever right to post links and views about Charismatic practices. You do not agree with charismatic practices and went out of your way to tear down every thing he or I posted in that thread. If you do not agree, post your views, and just let it alone.

You seem to be in need of the true definition of nihilism. So here is one fresh from dictionary.com

ni·hil·ism   
[nahy-uh-liz-uhm, nee-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2.
anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3.
total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4.
Philosophy .
a.
an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b.
nothingness or nonexistence.
5.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6.
annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.​

Sorry, bud, but that is not me. You missed another observation.

In closing, I suggest you think about your username. You may post what you think is God's truth, but I see some of what you post as your truth. Sometimes your truth may agree with God, but always?

I am adding you once again to my block list.

So long.

...Bob

 

Awww. On ignore? Shucks. Someday, you have got to face facts Bob. Several have warned you of your attitude towards Scripture. Not just me. You have mocked me for embracing Scripture. It's plain in the thread where you did it.

Ever since I asked you to tell what charismatic doctrines you embrace you've tucked tail and name called. I'll gladly be on your ignore list.

By the way, nihilism does apply to you. Plain fact. That you can't see this is status quo for you. (that's "par for the course" in case you need an easier definition)

I will gladly be persecuted for standing upon the Word of God. And God bless all others on here who do so as well.


- Blessings

 

There was no women as part of the twelve. Perhaps you wrote that incorrectly?
Also there is no scripture that teaches that women prophesy in church. Yes they did and can prophesy, but they did not do it in the church as is clear as the admonition to remain silent and not teach men. The church back then did not have Sunday school. They met under the leadership of men.
As for the praying I think you are using today's system to identify the early church. They could pray, but unlike today they would not have been called on for prayer in an open congregation. Their praying would be personal/private and even then done with head covered if they were shorn.