John MacArthur and Beth Moore

I fail to see how this changes anything.

 

I'm sure that is a true statement.

 

So be it. I will warn you that you are sinning by claiming women can teach men in church. Since I am not in your church this is all I can do as far as church discipline is concerned. I pray God softens your heart.

 

Thanks for the warning. I disagree despite you not understanding why. I can simply say that context matter when we read scripture. I can also say that your position has bread generations of very prideful men who have terribly mistreated their wives. God will judge such men for their pride and acts of terrorism on their wives and children. (I do not know you. I make no claim about you personally. I make my statement from observing men in conservative churches who have been godless and cowardly.)

 

Thank you for understanding my intent. I am concerned for Christ's response when you meet Him, so I must say something to not sin.

I myself am single still, but when married I intend to love and dote on my own 'ewe lamb.' Christ's leadership of men is good, with men treating women they have authority over like Christ treats us (here I mean fathers and husbands). Anyone harsh with his wife or daughter better develop more fear of how Jesus will treat them.

 

I'm perfectly fine being taught by a woman who can teach me something. And, I'd prefer a godly woman behind the pulpit than a heretical male. The issue of male headship shouldn't be taken to the degree of putting a bad man above a good woman, or of remaining ignorant because you don't want to hear what a woman has to say.

I don't think my position contradicts anything Paul said, because I take his words as apostolic rule, not law. And, so does everyone else. I've never been in a church that literally didn't let women say anything, and I doubt Paul has either. Still, I wouldn't join a church with a woman pastor, and neither would most men (including those hypocrites who approve of women pastors).

 

And the Bible grants women the ability to teach YOUNGER WOMEN. NOT MEN.

 

The same argument about cultural context is the same argument the LGBTQ crowd uses....

 

Context in these passages is important. I am not as dogmatic as you are in demanding such a strong stance from the passages you might use.
I respect your right to think your position is untenable. I hope you will grant me the right to biblically disagree.

 

No I don't believe you have a right to BIBLICALLY disagree. Disagree yes, but not biblically. Again, the same reasoning you employ here is how LGBTQ ignores Scripture to somehow think they are compatible with the teachings of the Bible.

 

I'm not arguing for culture context, however. I'm arguing for grammatical use that indicates Paul didn't see his position as being eternally set in stone. I have listened to this debate for over 30 years and heard every angle possible. I have chosen the position that the text of scripture gives more latitude to women as teachers than your position is allowing. I hope you will respect that your position is not the only tenable position that is biblically based with solid hermeneutical evidence.

As for the LGBTQ movement, your argument is apples to oranges, meaning it is an entirely different argument. I reject your attempt to make them correlate as one. They don't. If you wish for my opinion on alternative sexuality, you may start a new forum.

 

also John Calvin, in his Institutes, IV.10.29-30:

"the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like....things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe....these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted....in those matters the custom and institutions of the country...declare what is to be done or avoided." —John Calvin

 

Except you look at the whole history of the Bible and see that is not the case. Also pointing out Eve as the weaker vessel. Paul, and all of Scripture, is very specific on this issue. So no, your position is not only untenable it is flat out in defiance of Scripture.

 

And I disagree with Calvin on that point. Again, this is why I hate the label Calvinist because people seem to think that means we must go with everything he taught.

 

"Apollos...an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures....he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him they took him unto them and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately"

Note the order: 'Priscilla and Aquila':

"I should not wonder but he put them in order according to quality rather than according to the rule of sex. He named Priscilla, first, because she was first in energy of character and attainments in Divine Grace. There is a precedence which, in Christ, is due to the woman when she becomes the leader in devotion and manifests the stronger mind in the things of God. It is well when Nature and Grace both authorize our saying, 'Aquila and Priscilla,' but it is not amiss when Grace outruns Nature and we hear of, 'Priscilla and Aquila.'" — Charles Spurgeon

Hallelujah!

 

Staunch complementarian Mary Kassian rebukes John MacArthur:

Mary Kassian on Twitter

 

I disagree. Certainly it is not "flat out defiance" of scripture. You are welcome to your opinion, david. I respect that right. Please do not demand your dogma be upheld as the only possible biblical position. Brighter minds than you or me have debated this issue for decades. We can still be in holy fellowship with God and disagree on this issue.
Peace

 

Sure, I have a biblical disagreement. You don't hold the only biblical position on this issue. It seems prideful to imagine that you do, to be honest.
I respect your right to hold your view. Please extend the same respect back.

 

Oh brother.

 

There is only one biblical position on any issue. If someone were to deny the Trinity would you allow them to hold that disagreement as their biblical position?