Featured Is Al Mohler Right?

First let me say that though I attend a Baptist church we are not part of the convention. Honestly if we were I would leave that church because of how far the SBC has backslid.
That being said the question poses a fine line. Though the SBC is not literally a church it is tied to the church thus I see no biblical distinction. I think it would be playing word games or an end run around scripture for a woman to be President of the SBC. This is not about personal qualifications. This is about Biblical qualification, and no woman is ever to hold an office in the church that has men under her.

 

Got it! You believe there is absolutely no difference between male and female. Both groups have the same DNA. Both groups have the same biology. Both groups can birth babies. Both groups have the same level of upper body strength. Right! The LtGBQ+ community totally agrees with you. That’s why our wives and daughters are being forced to share locker rooms and bathrooms because folks like you don’t understand men and women are different.

And once again, you are unable (unwilling?) to address the reasons the Apostle Paul gave for the prohibition, which is based on scripture. You don’t care about understanding scripture.

Instead, you embrace a modern, secular understanding that dismisses Paul and the SCRIPTURE he wrote under the inspiration of God Holy Spirit as a paternalistic misogynist.

Shameful, especially given you continuously start threads attempting to teach others the correct meaning of scripture and theology

peace to you

 

Once again I am confronted with a post attributing to me falsehood after falsehood with nary a quote of support. Why these attracts on truth, justice and edification are routinely allowed is mind boggling.

The issue is not whether scripture indicated women were not to be used as leaders in the first century church, but whether this teaching has timeless application or could some women become qualified to serve as leaders within the bounds of sound biblical interpretation.

Certainly the obdurate posts of non-stop falsehoods only hinders edification. Go figure

 

Will you address Paul’s reason for the prohibition against women teaching or having authority over men? He states it very clearly in the context.

The rest of what you posted is useful information and doesn’t change the prohibition given by Paul against female leadership within the church.

I have often wondered if the “prophesying” (preaching the gospel) that you mentioned is referring to the “office” of the evangelist, which is mentioned only once (as far as I can discern).

If there is an office of an”evangelist”, then the references to women proclaiming the gospel is explained without women being in leadership positions (elders) within the church.

Paul also states the older women should teach the younger women.

Again, useful information. Thanks for posting

peace to you

 

Once again, instead of addressing Paul’s reasons for the prohibition against female leadership in the church given in 1 Timothy, which are biblical not cultural, you use your post to claim victimhood because the ramifications of your beliefs are exposed.

…go figure….

peace to you

 

The “no difference” is in the context of comparing Jews and Gentiles, specifically, ALL are born sinners, and ALL are justified by faith in Christ, Jew, Gentile, bond, slave, male, female—all have sinned and all are justified the same way.

 

Note this and the prior post exclusively addresses my behavor, using unsubstantiated charges, to change the subject away from scriptural investigation.

The issue is not whether scripture indicated women were not to be used as leaders in the first century church, but whether this teaching has timeless application or could some women become qualified to serve as leaders within the bounds of sound biblical interpretation.

Certainly the obdurate posts of non-stop falsehoods only hinders edification. Go figure

 

Here we have a point of view, equal before God, as the extent of the scope of the statement, there is no difference between male and female. This claim is supported by the fairy dust of supposed but unsubstantiated context.

Please review Galatians 3:23 to 3:29.

The idea is that born anew believers are children of God, and therefore children of the promise as the descendants of Abraham. Also note that a statement of limited scope (promised to the believing blood descendants of Abraham) was expanded to including believing non-blood relatives of Abraham). So the scope includes the rights, privileges and benefits of being of God's chosen family. Thus the actual context does not support the limited scope of equally justified.

The fly in the buttermilk is that the passage does not tell us which distinctions are not applicable between male and female, and which are applicable.

If we turn to 1 Corinthians 11:5 we see that Paul envisioned women teaching, rebuking, etc under the guidance of their indwelt divine guidance.

The problem of course, is we do not know if women were "prophesying" before men and women, or possibly just women and children.

 

I have asked you to address the passage in 1 Timothy concerning Paul’s reason to exclude women from leadership positions over men. Paul’s reasons are based on scripture, not culture, which you are advocating.

This fact directly addresses the point you are making in the 2nd paragraph, but you twist and turn and dance the victimization jig to divert attention from your inability to actually engage the passage in context.

These arguments are not new. I’ve had this conversation for over 25 years. I had a teacher making the same argument that you are making more than 25 years ago.

At least he had the honesty to come out and say he disagreed with Paul’s interpretation of the OT. Audacious, but he understood what the text said, acknowledged it while dismissing Paul’s authority to say it.

You are not far from the same mindset

peace to you

 

And I have answered this question at least twice. Here again is the answer for the third time.

The issue is not whether scripture indicated women were not to be used as leaders in the first century church, but whether this teaching has timeless application or could some women become qualified to serve as leaders within the bounds of sound biblical interpretation. ​

If we turn to 1 Corinthians 11:5 we see that Paul envisioned women teaching, rebuking, etc under the guidance of their indwelt divine guidance.

The problem of course, is we do not know if women were "prophesying" before men and women, or possibly just women and children.

 

Again, for about the 5th time, Paul’s REASONS for the prohibition are based on scripture, specifically that Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived. The reason is not based on cultural attitudes toward women.

Paul never argues women are not capable, or not intelligent enough, or not good speakers, or are not gifted by God for service in other areas of Christian ministry and specifically says the older women should teach the younger.

This is not about ability, it is about God’s design.

Male leadership in the church and the home are timeless truths instituted by God for His people.

Back to the OP. The SBC is not a church. There is no prohibition against a woman leading the SBC, though I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

peace to you

 

That's your problem if you are not rightly dividing the truth. Wanna know the answers to your problem? Bible is NEVER confused and NEVER contradicting itself.

 

Somehow I missed where you indicated which view is "rightly diving the truth."

 

Here the poster argues that since his restriction of the role of women was based on scripture, that means the restriction is timeless. Fiddlesticks. I already referenced a cultural accommodation found in scripture that was not timeless.

Next, the argument is made that the restriction is not based on inherent female capability, but rather on God's design for the roles male and female are to play within the family and church. But again no scripture was referenced to undercut the fact women prophesy, thus teaching and rebuking others, possibly men.

Now lets return to the concept of the Biblical role of women as recognized by Paul in scripture.

Acts of the Apostles 18:2-3 (NET)

There he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to depart from Rome. Paul approached them, and because he worked at the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them (for they were tentmakers by trade). ​

1) Priscilla was a women, married to Aquila
2) Priscilla worked in the same trade as her husband as a tent maker.
3) Priscilla worked with Paul as tent makers, thus Paul accepted her bread-winner role.

Acts of the Apostles 18:18-19 (NET)

Paul, after staying many more days in Corinth, said farewell to the brothers and sailed away to Syria accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because he had made a vow. When they reached Ephesus, Paul left Priscilla and Aquila behind there, but he himself went into the synagogue and addressed the Jews. ​

Here we see that Paul on a missionary journey, left fellow-workers at Corinth, and then left Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus. Thus Paul saw the role of Priscilla to be active in leadership of the church or churches at Ephesus.

Acts of the Apostles 18:26 (NET)

He [Apollos] began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately. ​

Clearly we see Priscilla counseling Apollos, a man and a leader, thus women may indeed, according to scripture engage in leadership roles within the church.

Thus the false claim of the above post seems unstudied. We have reached no conclusion on the matter, but we suggest the answer requires prayerful study, meditation and wisdom.

 

First, it is not MY prohibition against women in leadership roles over men in the church, it is Paul’s and it is based on scripture.

Second, you are confusing a woman doing secular work (tent making) with leadership in the church. If you had read my other posts in this thread, you would have seen I acknowledged the truth that even in biblical times women owned businesses, bought and sold property etc.

Additionally, it is a great assumption that since Paul let Aquila and Pricilla together (they were married) in Ephesus that somehow equates to Paul appointing Pricilla into a leadership role over men in the church.

If that were true, as you have claimed, then Paul has contradicted himself when he gave instruction to Timothy that prohibited a woman from teaching or having authority over men in the church.

Third, Apollos was an evangelists, not a leader in the local church. That Pricilla and her husband Aquila, together, instructed Apollos more accurately in the “way”, does not violate Paul’s the prohibition of female leadership in the church. Pricilla remained under her husbands authority.

Lastly, all issues of scripture and doctrine should be considered prayerfully and without pre-conceived bias.

peace to you

 

Remember the context: Paul is advising Timothy on dealing with false teachers, likely directly from the Artemis/Diana cult or heavily influenced by it. We don’t know much about the cult except it was goddess worship directed primarily or exclusively by women.

In this environment, we can easily imagine that the false teachers made claims that women are spiritually superior. Paul simply points out from Genesis 3 that women are not inherently spiritually superior.

I think what you intend to write is that the man was created PRIOR to the woman, not “higher.”

Your interpretation of what Paul wrote is explicitly and completely wrong. Genesis 1:26-27 clearly states that humankind, male AND FEMALE, are made in the image of God. Paul would not reject the plain teaching of Genesis 1.

The second reason you are misinterpreting this passage is that you are not looking at it in the context of head coverings, and you likely don’t understand anything about the culture of the Greco-Roman world. More on that in a moment.

The woman was created as a powerful ally for the benefit of the man (Genesis 2:18), just as much in God’s image as a man (Genesis 1:26-27).

That’s a toxic conclusion based on bad interpretation.

So what is Paul talking about regarding head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11?

In the Greco-Roman culture, women who wore head coverings wore them as a symbol that they were married to a man who was a citizen. It was a symbol of authority, freedom, and honor. By contrast, women who were not married to a man who was a citizen were NOT ALLOWED to wear a head covering, and were considered socially (and sometimes morally) inferior — such as slaves and prostitutes.

The early church in the Greco-Roman world was composed of a significant percentage of slaves, male and female, who worked in various roles according to the dictates of their masters. And one of the enduring humiliations and violations of slavery is that slaves were frequently sexually abused (especially pre-pubescent boys, girls, and younger women) by their masters, and sometimes even forced to be prostitutes to make an income for their masters. So we can be confident that there were a significant number of women in his congregation who had to live with this appalling and degraded status. But Paul wanted women to understand that their degraded earthly circumstances were not the same in the Kingdom of God. Instead of these “lesser” women gathering with women of status (signified by head coverings), Paul insists that ALL women who are in Christ wear the symbol of authority and citizenship in the meetings of the church. In Christ, each woman and man is a full citizen of the Kingdom of God and shares in Christ's authority. As an illustration, Paul draws a parallel between the Greco-Roman head covering as a symbol of status (glory) from the man in the marital relationship and the story from Genesis 2 regarding the creation of the woman from the side of the man. In the same way, women wear head coverings in the congregation because of their status (glory) in Christ, for she is derived from God.

In short, women who prayer or preach should cover her head denoting her status as an honored citizen of the heavens and a bride of Christ. She should not have to act like a man (head uncovered or shaved) to fulfill that role, but should express her God-made femininity in her dress and appearance.

 

I already have.

Neither men nor women should exercise authority (αὐθεντεῖν) over another man or woman. That's not the way of Christ (Matthew 20:25).

Paul didn't give a prohibition, you only interpret his writings in such a way that you believe he did. Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7), which is almost certainly a "leadership" position.

1 Corinthians 11:4 is, of necessity, a reference to the congregational meetings of the church. Women would not be allowed to publicly break the prohibitions against lower status women covering their heads as a sign of citizenship and social authority.

 

1) First, the issue is whether Paul's restriction of women is timeless.

2) I did not limit Priscilla's role as breadwinner, I addressed her role in teaching and rebuking a church leader, Apollos.

3) I did not say Paul appointed Priscilla as a leader over men in the church at Ephesus. Why do you constantly misrepresent my view! Here is actually what I said, "Thus Paul saw the role of Priscilla to be active in leadership of the church or churches at Ephesus." Did this say Priscilla was to exercise authority over men and conflict with Paul's guidance to Timothy? Nope

4) Apollos acted in a leadership role with churches.(1 Cor. 3:5-6) Paul planted and Apollos watered!

5) The claim Priscilla did not act independently within churches is an assumption, as scripture does not say either way. And of course her actions, we under the authority of Christ and her husband. The extent of her actions are not necessarily limited by scripture, but only by your sides assumptions.

 

Thank you for acknowledging scripture does not claim Paul left Pricilla in a leadership role over men in the church at Ephesus.

Back to the OP…

Since the SBC is not a “church”, there should be no restriction on women serving in leadership roles over men, even to be the Pres.

peace to you