A woman teaching men?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If it is a problem it would be for the same Biblical reason a woman is not to be a teacher of men. Now I have seen were there was a woman adult class Sunday school teacher under the authority of a Pastor (being a man) has been defended. Not that I can agree. It is my understanding the American Baptist Convention allows member Baptist churches which has a woman Pastor.

And that’s why I’m not a member

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just to repeat, Jesus first appeared to the women and He, Jesus, instructed the women to tell the men He had risen.

These women were instructed by Jesus to reveal the most important truth in history to the men who had abandoned Him.

peace to you

So what!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It was an inspired writing. Good try though.
Verse 15 shows you that the passage goes far beyond Paul's preference.

It’s not a preference…it’s a demand

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Most Baptists will agree that a female should not be a pastor.
Many Baptists will believe that a female should not teach a mens class

BUT

how about a woman who writes a SS lesson, but taught by a man.
Would you find that to be acceptable?

Why or why not?

Maybe utilize it as source material, but I would lean towards no.

 

[AustinC]

It's amazing how you are able to add nothing to a conversation without throwing around personal attacks. That's typically a sign that your position is built on sand and is quickly sinking.

Myself and Reynolds have posted multiple verses in support of our position. We have respected Bible teachers like Macarthur directly addressing this same issue in agreement with us. So feel free to disagree, but it's clearly NOT pride and is adherence to our Lord's Word despite modern pressures to submit to feminist orthodoxy.

Are you sure you want to use Deborah as an example of female spiritual leadership for your ailing position? She was appointed as a judge when the nation of Israel was full of sin and needed to be judged. If your best example of a woman as a spiritual leader is the woman that was placed as a judge over Israel precisely as a form of judgement then I wouldn't be too excited about that.

Did Phillip's prophetic daughters have to remain silent in their prophetic gifts to the church whenever a man was around?

I understand the verses you lean on as a crutch to ignore more than half the body of Christ. I am curious as to whether any of MacArthur's books have been edited by a woman and thus become useless to you.

 

[robycop3]

Why wouldn't I accept it? God gives knowledge to both men & women. Look how many prophetesses and queens there were in Scripture.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why wouldn't I accept it? God gives knowledge to both men & women. Look how many prophetesses and queens there were in Scripture.

Well there are Plenty of Queens in the LGBTQ as well ….

 

[Van]

Since Paul, under inspiration of The Holy Spirit, prohibited women to teach men; then what you propose would constitute a division in the Godhead.
Holy Spirit prohibited it and Jesus ordains it?????

Should be accept a long, two posts long, explanation Paul did not mean what He said. Is God's word a smorgasbord where we accept what meshes with our presuppositions, and nullify what tells us our understanding is wrong?

Was Paul speaking of women educated according to the culture of that time, or was His position intended to be timeless.

And if you answer the question, provide the method you used to reach your conclusion, because I believe many scholars come down on both sides of the issue.

 

[Reynolds]

Should be accept a long, two posts long, explanation Paul did not mean what He said. Is God's word a smorgasbord where we accept what meshes with our presuppositions, and nullify what tells us our understanding is wrong?

Was Paul speaking of women educated according to the culture of that time, or was His position intended to be timeless.

And if you answer the question, provide the method you used to reach your conclusion, because I believe many scholars come down on both sides of the issue.

Macarthur breaks it down in the link I posted. No need to write out pages when he eloquently says it.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Was Paul speaking of women educated according to the culture of that time, or was His position intended to be timeless.

That argument always baffles me. It presupposes that the men were somehow more educated than the women when it was both groups that were heavily into pagan worship.
Yes, it is for all time. Paul would have no reason to mention created order, or the fact that it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam - Adam willingly went into sin by following the woman who had usurped his role as leader. Aside from the fact that God taught Adam personally, He did not teach Eve but intended for Adam to shepherd her.

 

[AustinC]

That argument always baffles me. It presupposes that the men were somehow more educated than the women when it was both groups that were heavily into pagan worship.
Yes, it is for all time. Paul would have no reason to mention created order, or the fact that it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam - Adam willingly went into sin by following the woman who had usurped his role as leader. Aside from the fact that God taught Adam personally, He did not teach Eve but intended for Adam to shepherd her.

In the garden, Eve did not usurp Adam's role as leader. Adam failed in his role as master gardener and protector of the garden. The serpent set eyes on the assistant gardener and deceived while the master gardener failed to crush the serpents head. This is precisely why the "second Adam" came. He did what the first Adam did not do. He crushed the serpents head. He withstood every temptation. He took on the role of High Priest. He is in every way superior to Adam in tending to the garden.
Eve certainly was tempted, but she wasn't the only one showing weakness. Adam failed in more than one way in the dialogue with the serpent and then, later, with God.
If we are going to project Eve upon all women, then we men must project Adam upon ourselves, which means we are double failures. Yet, I don't see any men here being man enough to admit their double failure. Instead, like sinners, we look at others and blame someone else.

 

[JesusFan]

That argument always baffles me. It presupposes that the men were somehow more educated than the women when it was both groups that were heavily into pagan worship.
Yes, it is for all time. Paul would have no reason to mention created order, or the fact that it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam - Adam willingly went into sin by following the woman who had usurped his role as leader. Aside from the fact that God taught Adam personally, He did not teach Eve but intended for Adam to shepherd her.

The real question is does the bible teach to us male headship in area of spiritual leadership and home authority then?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

The real question is does the bible teach to us male headship in area of spiritual leadership and home authority then?

Yes, which is why Paul brought that up in leading to the qualifications for pastor/elder.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, which is why Paul brought that up in leading to the qualifications for pastor/elder.

And those who argue against male headship and leadership are trying to distort and rewrite the bible today!

 

[Reynolds]

In the garden, Eve did not usurp Adam's role as leader. Adam failed in his role as master gardener and protector of the garden. The serpent set eyes on the assistant gardener and deceived while the master gardener failed to crush the serpents head. This is precisely why the "second Adam" came. He did what the first Adam did not do. He crushed the serpents head. He withstood every temptation. He took on the role of High Priest. He is in every way superior to Adam in tending to the garden.
Eve certainly was tempted, but she wasn't the only one showing weakness. Adam failed in more than one way in the dialogue with the serpent and then, later, with God.
If we are going to project Eve upon all women, then we men must project Adam upon ourselves, which means we are double failures. Yet, I don't see any men here being man enough to admit their double failure. Instead, like sinners, we look at others and blame someone else.

Paul projected Eve on all Women.

 

[AustinC]

Paul projected Eve on all Women.

No
Read of his respect for women in Romans 16 and the task he commits into Phoebe's hands.
You project onto women a less than position. Paul does not do what you do.

 

[Reynolds]

No
Read of his respect for women in Romans 16 and the task he commits into Phoebe's hands.
You project onto women a less than position. Paul does not do what you do.

No. You keep jumping line of thought. Paul plainly states because woman was deceived. You can't change that.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

No
Read of his respect for women in Romans 16 and the task he commits into Phoebe's hands.
You project onto women a less than position. Paul does not do what you do.

Speaking for myself...

What do you mean by "less than"?

If you mean less than as in an inferior RANK in matters of spiritual teaching, then that's correct. A colonel's scope of command is less than a general's scope of command. Paul makes it plain that the older women's scope of command extends to other women and children. He also makes it plain that the scope of command for men extends to all of humanity.

If you mean "less than" as in less valuable, then clearly not. Men go into combat. Men leave sinking ships last. Men prioritize women and children over other men. Our culture used to have this norm everywhere, and while this norm is retained in the South, I've not seen it retained elsewhere. Holding a door for a lady is an extension of this, as is defending the honor of a random woman when a random man insults her.

Men and women have different roles.
Men and women are of unequal Rank.
Men and women are of unequal temporal worth on Earth.
Men and women are of EQUAL eternal worth through an equally valuable soul.

 

[AustinC]

Speaking for myself...

What do you mean by "less than"?

If you mean less than as in an inferior RANK in matters of spiritual teaching, then that's correct. A colonel's scope of command is less than a general's scope of command. Paul makes it plain that the older women's scope of command extends to other women and children. He also makes it plain that the scope of command for men extends to all of humanity.

If you mean "less than" as in less valuable, then clearly not. Men go into combat. Men leave sinking ships last. Men prioritize women and children over other men. Our culture used to have this norm everywhere, and while this norm is retained in the South, I've not seen it retained elsewhere. Holding a door for a lady is an extension of this, as is defending the honor of a random woman when a random man insults her.

Men and women have different roles.
Men and women are of unequal Rank.
Men and women are of unequal temporal worth on Earth.
Men and women are of EQUAL eternal worth through an equally valuable soul.

Do you actually see men and women as part of a military structure where a jerk of a man can command a woman to do whatever he wishes because of rank of command? That mentality in the military lead to a lot of dead officers in Vietnam at the hands of "friendly fire." Perhaps you can point me toward the Bible passage showing the man as lieutenant and the woman as sergeant while the kids as privates.