G. A. Riplinger and fundamentalism

Now let's be honest and go tell your wife she has never taught you anything.:laugh: Dare ya!

The context has everything to do with it, be honest.

Sure my momma still teaches me to brush my teeth as a grown man, hers all fell out at 28.

 

As long as it's not the flannel graph sticking out her baggy britches.:laugh: :wavey: :applause:

 

The context was a women teaching a church...
GAR does this often.

And neo-IFB men can't seem to get enough.
Then stand up the next Sunday and rant and rave over women's roles in churches.

Very inconsistent.
So, Sal, would you go to one of her seminars?

 

You seem to have it all in a knapsack.

Yes, I would go to one of her seminars, but it won't be between the hours of 10 am and 1 pm or 6 pm and 9 pm on Sunday, not between 7:30 pm and 9 pm Wednesday or anyother day we're having CHURCH!

 

Just a Question

I read the arguments. There hilarious who needs comedy central listen to Christians argue over trivial things. I know what The bible says about women teachers/preachers. I dont thing G. Riplinger fits into that. Nor do I feel Joyce Meyers fits into it or the chick mentioned earlier. Im 27 and my grandma still teaches me stuff so is she in violation maybe I should tell her to shut up next time she gives me advice on life. In my opinion I'LL REPEAT SO NNE CAN TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT IN MY OPINION I believe the reason the bible says this about women is because of the times. Another question if your going to be picky on this how many women in our churches pray out loud with their heads uncovered. I maybe wrong but I think it directly forbids this to. What about repetitious prayer I cant count how many times in my churches that Ive heard prayers that sound exactly the same almost like someone has a prayer cheat sheet and passes it around, and Im not talking about praying for the same people either Im talking about almost exact copys. I had a guy tell me the other day that getting a tattoo was a sin. He quoted Lev. I said ok but that chapter was written to people who were doing this stuff to worship other gods and God pretty much said knock it out. He said to me is it worth going to hell over. I laughed and asked him to read the verse above it that talks about not cutting your beard and asked him if it was worth him going to hell over. Saying all that to say this if were going to knick pick the bible we need to knick pick the bible not use what we feel. As far as not knowing the bible like someone said in response to one of my comments How rude. but know this I know alot about the bible for the time I have invested I study it Im a firm believer that if anything contradicts the bible its wrong. Ive only been a Christian for 2 years now I was an athiest I though you all were nuts. until I meet Christ for myself and I didnt grow up in church like alot of you probably did.

 

Your theology of "church" is what is messing your theology up...

We do not "have church".... We ARE the church...
So if you don't feel that a woman should be teaching spiritual things to the men of the church, then you cannot justify going to her...

It would be the same as having a woman professor teaching Pastors..
If you are against women teaching men spiritual things, you would be against this...

 

I too believe that the passage about women teaching was written for a specific time.. but that is not what this thread is about...

What bothers me the most is the inconsistancy of the neo IFBs like Salamander..

They will preach things, but change when it suits them.

If a person believes a the passage still applies today, in today's context, and that it is a sin for a woman to teach a man spiritual things... they have to be against GAR to be consistant.

But hordes of IFB men that stand up and proclaim that women must not teach in the local church will flock to hear GAR spew forth her garbage against God's word.

(edited to say that I am not picking on IFBs... but if you look at her crowd, you will see the majority are IFBs.... that is just a fact.... if most were SBC, or ABC, I would name them)

 

"NEO- IFB"-

I like it!

I think that you have coined a term, TT!

:thumbs:

 

Oh, Great.. Now that is something to be remembered for!!!

 

She stands up in church and teaches men. That's directly against the Word of God, which says women should not teach. (Recheck your KJV.) Story ended.

Old time independent Baptist Fundamentalists, like the kind I grew up under, would never ever excuse or defend a woman standing up in church and teaching pastors and male believers.

 

You've done it now! You're a trend-setter. Get your business card revised and set up your seminar schedule. :laugh:

 

I wonder if I can be GAR's opening act?

 

Women teaching men in church is a trivial thing?? Friend, you appear to be influenced by the current philosophy of the world rather than the Word of God. This is hardly the same as your grandma teaching you things in private. This is the bride of Christ, the church of God we're talking about. Gail Riplinger stands up in church services and teaches men. The Bible forbids that. Story over.

Since you've only been saved a couple of years I hope you'll listen to one who has been saved for 51 years. We Baptists believe in something called the Baptist distinctives. The most important of those is usually stated, "The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice." You calling "hilarious" and "comedy central" our belief about what the Bible teaches about women in the church is immature. Please rethink it.

By the way, for the record, I believe that a woman should pray having her head covered, just as the Bible says and you have pointed out. That covering is normally her long hair, as the Bible teaches. My wife has lovely long auburn hair which she never cuts except for trimming damaged hair. If she were to cut her hair, I believe she should wear a hat as the Scripture teaches. But the ramifications and importance of this is not nearly as important as the issue of women teaching men in the church.

 

Only if you carry your 1611.

 

To be fair, I think you're right, Squire.

 

I agree 100%. Only those who have no excuse for a woman teaching men spiritual truths would call it trivial ot change the meaning to say the passage only applies to an official, organised, recognised church service between 10-7 and 6-7 Sunday and 7-8 on Wednesday.

It is just a clear example of a double-standard. Riplinger can teach men cause some like what she teaches, that is the only reason to argue for her being permitted to teach,

 

Whoever said you can't have a woman teach spiritual things?

We are the Body of Christ, His church. Us having church is our coming together with one mind and one accord to worship the Lord.

My theology is sound, yours is making noises.

And I suppose you'll take such a dogmatic stand against women ever teaching men anything and ignore Madam Currie's research on radiation.

Tiny doesn't give off much of a glow since he's been brushing with 100% flouride, but his teeth sure are white!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Glad I "bother" you, brother. Or should that be Oh! Brother!

Maybe Oh, bother?

Show me one instance I have preached against women teaching during the order of service and usurping authority over men and then backed up and said it was alright?

Only your attemtp to validate your conjecture could possibly make such an erroneous charge.

Only in the convoluted sense.

Again the SBC proclaims to have all the goods on the Bible, yet they aren't sure what it is exactly. They certainly stab at everyone who stands on the KJB and attack them and the Bible consistently.

Even satan is consistent in a few things, but his consistency is compiled and only fits into only three catagories: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the PRIDE of life.

I would never have Riplinger stand behind the pulpit, ever, but I would invite her to teach a lesson on the Bible and leave it up to the priesthood of the believer to accept or deny her teaching.

Those who have had her behind the pulpit have that right as being independent and not to be controlled by any association.

"Mob rules" in the SBC.:laugh:

 

I agree in the order of service of the church, but that is not what I said either.

The church building is one thing, but the Church called together for worship is another. She would not teach in the Church, but she could teach in the church building.

If you consider this is mentioned in a pastoral epistle, you would realize Paul was instructing Timothy in the order of service.

Now, go check YOUR KJB again.