John MacArthur and Beth Moore

[Steven Yeadon]

Context is important. I do not think your passages make the argument you think they do.

1 Timothy 3:14-16
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

2 Timothy 2:11-17
The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself. Remind them of these things, and charge them before Godnot to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene.

1 Corinthians 14:29-40
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.

Genesis 3:14-21 The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

I fail to see how this changes anything.

 

[Particular]

I fail to see how this changes anything.

I'm sure that is a true statement.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

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.

 

[Particular]

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.)

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Thanks for the warning.

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.

 

[Shoostie]

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).

 

[Reformed1689]

I don't care about "feel" the call.
I just observe both men and women Christians who are highly skilled in studying and understanding God's word. God has given them the gift to teach. I highly doubt God made a mistake when He gives his gifts.
Once again, I point to Deborah as God's ordained Judge over Israel and the various prophetesses God ordained to bring a message to His people. God didn't make a mistake.
I do believe that God's direction is to have men lead the fellowship. But, it is simply prideful on the part of men to ignore the gifts God has given to women for the body, just because God chose to create them as women. When God has clearly gifted a woman to edify the church. Accept what God has willed.

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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.)

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

 

[Particular]

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

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[Particular]

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

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.

 

[Jerome]

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

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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

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.

 

[Jerome]

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

"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!

 

[Jerome]

Staunch complementarian Mary Kassian rebukes John MacArthur:

Mary Kassian on Twitter

Dear @johnmacarthur: @BethMooreLPM is our sister and fellow laborer for the gospel. You may differ theologically, but please do so with charity and respect.

 

[Particular]

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.

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

 

[Particular]

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.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

Staunch complementarian Mary Kassian rebukes John MacArthur:

Mary Kassian on Twitter

Oh brother.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

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?