tinytim said:
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..
Glad I "bother" you, brother. Or should that be Oh! Brother!
Maybe Oh, bother?
They will preach things, but change when it suits them.
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.
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.
Only in the convoluted sense.
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)
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: