The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 1 Timothy 2 issue

I'm not sure that the practice of "extending grace" where it violates, contradicts or diminishes a biblical precept, teaching, or law is a legitimate one. Actually, I know it is not something the Bible teaches us to do. We are to "extend grace" as you put it to those brothers/sisters who are "weak" in certain areas of Adiaphora; things indifferent, e.g., in matters of food, drink, observing of days and such matters. Matters which are good, in and of themselves, are just that . . . "good" and are thus free to be used with thanksgiving, if used rightly. However, as to matters which deal with the polity of the Church and the teaching of God's truth, this is not included in matters of "indifference". To do one thing is right and pleasing to God. To do otherwise is wrong and not pleasing to God. This topic is one of these "right or wrong" issues.

Secondly, no one here has even hinted that, "a woman has nothing to offer her husband or a man in general in the area of our faith." The truth is, those of us who hold to the "traditional" interpretation of the Scriptures in this matter, based on sound biblical exegesis and interpretation, apart from cultural mores, also hold strongly to a doctrine which sees woman as most valuable and who have many opportunities to minister in the Church, home and society at large. Your statement is fallacious and does not represent what we believe at all. The issue is, Are women permitted to teach and/or have authority over men within the Church and home? Is it clearly NOT, Can women teach a man anything. But rather, Are women allowed to be "teachers" of men. These are two decidedly different things of which it is important to distinguish.

In His Grace,

I don't want to beat a "dead horse", but if you want to stick to the "letter of Law" and without consideration of what was happening in the Church of Corinth, then woman are NOT to speak at all during a service. Knowing that the Church at that time, met predominantly in homes and were probably more like what we would consider a Bible Study home group, this would be a "tall order". Mind you, there is no qualification, like "once the Elder begins teaching or preaching" the women need to be quiet, the "letter of the Law" is, NEVER! So, in your church, if you have women singing or praying aloud or speaking out a prayer request, I assume the Elder in charge of order, escorts them out, right? If you are going to stick to the "letter of the Law", in 1Tim. 2:11-15, depending if you believe this is "man and wife" or "men and women" being address, you are for sure going to make the single women get married right?, Because after all, they are "saved in child bearing" and if they "continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety". Remember the "letter of the Law" doesn't allow to separate "saved in childbearing" from the rest of the verse. If you are reading this William, this is what I mean by extending grace and love. Yes, do not let a woman usurp authority from a man thinking they are without restraint in the area of teaching when men are present, YES, women are not to disrupt a service by asking questions or verbally disagreeing with the Elder, but in just about everything else, "extend grace and love" to the women of the Church.
I am a little surprised that there was so much opposition. We the Reform part of the Church, in my estimation, take a very extreme view of what I believe are two difficult passages to interpret (at least in my understanding). Hey, such is life. Thanks for the imput, I am done posting on this issue.
In Christ love, George

But George, if you didn't want to "beat a dead horse", which is what you have done, then why did you do it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

The Lord Christ would have us not live by the "Letter of the Law" as you have indicated, but rather to go BEYOND the "letter" and live by the "Spirit of the Law". In every instance in Scripture, where the incarnate God expounded on the Law of God, He instructed His disciples that the "letter" only skims the surface while the "spirit" plunges to the depths of what the law actually requires; i.e., obedience from the heart and not simply an outward action. Thus, in this matter of women teaching men in the Church, simple conformity to the clear restriction is not enough, particularly where it impacts upon a woman's obedience to this law. She must do so willingly and most cheerfully knowing that it is the will of God for her life and for the sake of the order established by God for the Church.

Obviously and unfortunately, you have totally misunderstood what Paul was writing in regard to a woman being saved through "childbearing"! I would refer you back to one of my initial replies to you where I quoted a small section of William Hendriksen's comments from his Commentary. In that passage of Scripture, where Paul is basing the remarks which follow on the creation order and the place of women, not just wives, he uses the example of the typical married woman who would normally bear children. In that example he is emphasizing the place of women in relation to men; i.e., men have been given the authority to teach as the head of the woman and not vice versa. And women are designed to be helpmates of men and they have been given the privilege to bear children, and not vice versa. He is speaking of "roles" of men and women as God has created them. Thus, women (godly, Christ-professing women) are saved (ultimately) through their obedience (not by works of the law, but by displaying their good works. cf. 1Tim 2:10; Eph 2:10) and not by exercising dominion over men nor in teaching men. The thrust of Paul's words is that women should content themselves in being submissive NOT as did Eve when she usurped Adam's authority and which led to the fall of all mankind. (cf. vss 13, 14).

The fact that Paul bases all that follows upon 1) the creation order and 2) the entrance of sin, totally eliminates any possibility that his words can be relegated to a "cultural boundness". If they applied to the Church when in its infancy when it was meeting in homes. It applies all the more to the Church as it has matured throughout history.

I fully understand your "surprise". However, that such a view as you have posited here, and that which is becoming popular in the modern church is of no surprise to me, personally. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> The modern "culture" with its strong Feminist influence has effectively launched a campaign to dismantle biblical Christianity in many areas, e.g., women in the church, homosexuality, family, marriage, etc., <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Ironically then, it isn't that Paul's teaching was based upon his cultural surroundings, but rather that the assault launched by Modernists is based squarely upon a demonic and worldly philosophy which is antithetical to biblical teaching.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,
I guess I am addicted to your forum (“beating a dead horse”), and answering this post. I pretty much agree with William Hendriksen’s commentary on 1Tim. 2:15, I must not of made my point clear, so let’s try again. If we just take 1Timothy 2:11-15 and didn’t investigate Scripture and the Greek (i.e. Joe), one could believe that women are saved by bearing children. Which as you, others (forum) and Hendricksen’s, have explained in a rational way, is not true. Yet, what if the beginning of the passage (vs 11-12) is referring to a married couple and what if the passage can be explained to mean “continuously teach (I know Joe, “didaskein” by itself can not mean “continuous”, but at least two people I have read from, say it can, contextually) and usurping the authority of the husband or man”, then the admonition is not as simple as it reads. Let’s say, that indeed that is what the text says, “I do not allow a woman to teach a man…”. Ok, is it just spiritual Bible teaching? Can my wife or a woman friend, teach me to balance my check book correctly? Again, without a broad understanding of Scripture, the novice may stumble here by what the passage says and actually means. Which brings up another issue Pilgrim; what do you do with Christian women who come to this site and correct men who may have written something not to their liking; is this teaching men and usurping their authority? Should the bouncer Elder, ban her from the forum? Another hypothetical (or not so) situation; my wife is quite knowledgeable on the specifics of Temple of Solomon, should I throw her out of the Bible Study or severely chastise her, if she corrects me on the actual articles that are found in the Holy of Holies ? Is it ok, if I ask her the answer in front of the men in our group? Hopefully, you can readily see, that this whole issue of women being silent and not teaching men, can have some serious implications of legalism, if one is not careful. In my case, I will go on being the “antinomian, feminist, disobedient and Scripture twisting” person many already believe me to be (though I don’t think of myself that way) and let women speak in Church (singing, praying, etc)and teach men under certain circumstances that doesn’t usurp their authority or diminished God’s glory in His Church.
This will really be my last post, at least for several days, I am going camping. California is still sunny, unlike those poor folks in Florida.
In Christ love, George

George ,


If we did away with Greek, Hebrew, hermeneutical interpretation, the covenant theology, and whatever, then we could make the Bible say anything we desired—but it would not be God’s Word. When we take away from not only WHAT God says, but HOW He says it and its very CONTEXT you are just reading another literature book (i.e. If I take a whole person and take away his right arm (Greek), his left arm (Hebrew), his right leg (hermeneutical interpretation), and the left leg (covenant theology), I am left with a body of words with no foundation). This is what liberalism, feminism, and a host of other false cults do to sell their wares to believers and unbelievers alike. Even much of the PC USA has bought into this false method of interpretation --they are apostate.


As Hendriksen stated, “In the service of the Word on the day of the Lord a woman should learn, not teach.…As already indicated, these directives regarding the woman’s role in connection with public worship are based not on temporary or contemporary conditions or circumstances but on two facts that have meaning for all time, namely, the fact of creation and the fact of the entrance of sin.” The context here is "Directions for Public Worship." What does this have to do with balancing check books or the Highway?

So where does this leave the “novice Christian” you ask who does not have access to Greek, Hebrew, proper theology, etc.? In a biblical Church where God says, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…” (Eph 4:11-14 ff). Presently you are being tossed to and fro, we pray that you might get under some biblical teaching that will direct you towards God and not continue in the realm of “every wind of doctrine…”

Joe,
You say "As Hendriksen stated, “In the service of the Word on the day of the Lord a woman should learn, not teach.…As already indicated, these directives regarding the woman’s role in connection with public worship are based not on temporary or contemporary conditions or circumstances but on two facts that have meaning for all time, namely, the fact of creation and the fact of the entrance of sin.” The context here is "Directions for Public Worship." What does this have to do with balancing check books or the Highway?"

Are not where two or more believers are gather, Christ is there? Is not this church? Is not my small Bible Study on Sunday night Church and public worship? Why has no one addressed woman singing or praying in Church? The reason is, you all know your places of worship do include woman participating, inspite of verses like 1Cor. 14:34-35 and 1Tim. 2:11-12 who say woman are to be quiet period! Without any qualification at all. You guys know also, that even on this forum you have woman correcting and teaching men. The whole thing screams of hypocrisy in the disguise of orthodoxy.
George

Not, necessarily! Christ is present when my wife and I sleep. Am I having public worship then? Christ is present several times when individuals are not having public worship?— After all He is omni-present! What is your definition of Church as compared to the historical meaning?


NO, your small Bible Study on Sunday Night at Church is not considered Public Worship by definition! Do you baptize individuals in your Bible Study? Do you offer communion there?


Do your women assert authority over a man when they pray or sing? What is the object of their prayers and singing—man or God?


Is the Highway a Church? Are we conducting public worship here on the Highway? Did you get baptized here—(OK, maybe by fire <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" />), but not water…


The whole thing screams of <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> liberalism disguised as Reformed theology! Reformed theology does NOT embrace (1) feminist theology (2) other liberal views (2) a misunderstanding of Scripture, etc, etc., etc,…

Hi- I have been on vacation for nearly 2 weeks and haven't really gotten to read through this whole thread until now. I really like what Pilgrim said here to George:

(quote from Pilgrim)Yes indeed, there can be found those who disagree on any and every subject. However, what we are discussing here is what GOD has revealed and HIS truth concerning the role of women in the Church. Thus, despite the fact that there are those who disagree, the fact remains that only one of them is correct. The other is in violation of what God has decreed.
[/quote]

Some of the things George has brought up seems to be the same things I am hearing from my church. The quote from our church's position that I put in the original post is from a 2-3 page paper that shows the suppposed 2 positions of women in ministry (one of which is not ok to have women in leadership/teaching men in church and the other not ok). It's so clear to me that there simply aren't 2 positions on this issue and that it's one way or the other. It either has to be right or wrong with having women be elder and teach adult Sunday School and preach up front.

The questions George raised are the same things I've heard when I've discussed this issue with my husband - ie. Why was Deborah allowed to Judge?, living the "letter of the law" with the more conservative view, why were women allowed to phrophesy?, and bringing up the Galatians passage.

If anyone is interested, these articles are helpful with trying to clarify the issues:

http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=73
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=74
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=75

I don't understand why this question is brought up? The same thing was brought up by my husband in defense of women in leadership and teaching positions. Now am I missing something, because the way I see it Deborah was a judge not a priest. Isn't their a huge difference in position here?? Now if she was a Levite priest in the OT then I could see their is a legitimate argument. How can one compare Deborah being a Judge to a woman being an elder or pastor in a church today?

One cannot use Deborah as a reason to allow women into the ordained offices, Elder or Deacon, in the N.T. Church.

1) God's appointment of Deborah as a Judge was an exception to the normal rule which He Himself had established. If one wants to use Deborah to justify women in office, then to be consistent, we must also allow donkeys to prophesy today as well. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

2) In the New Testament we find the revelation of what was first revealed in the Old Testament; e.g., the fulfillment of the shadows, types, prophesies, etc. And thus the transition from the old economy to the new economy includes many changes both in expressions of a new universality, e.g., redemption and equality of men, women and children as well as a new spirituality. In this new economy, which is grounded upon the old economy, there is to be found a refining and defining of the people of God and a set of precepts and governing rules for them, one of which is who is to serve as office bearers in the Church. There are specific passages of Scripture which address the requirements and duties of those offices, particularly 1Tim 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9. Passages which are specific to a topic indisputably take precedent over passages which only allude to a topic. And in these two passages alone, there are very clear instructions as to who are to hold those offices; i.e., men only.

The restriction to men for the offices in the Church is not one based superiority and or ability but one which is based upon the original creation of God. The roles of men and women are clearly laid out in a covenantal formula; man being head of the woman. The principle is one of "functional subordination" and in my understanding, it reflects the relationship within the economic Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In His Grace,

Much is said right in this section. One might rightly ask why? Without further comment.

In response to an overture from the Presbytery of the Midwest the 51st General Assembly (1984) established a committee of three members (Messrs. Cottenden, Conn and Silva) "to consider the hermeneutical aspects of the debate over the role of women in ordained office and to report to the 52nd General Assembly with specific applications to this issue." This Committee presented a preliminary report which discussed some of the hermeneutical tensions involved in such a study and provided a series of hermeneutical guidelines. It quoted extensively from the 1978 report of a similar committee of the Christian Reformed Church.


The 52nd General Assembly (1985) recommitted the whole matter, including the preliminary report with its recommendations and the report of the advisory committee, to the Committee, which it enlarged by the addition of two members (Messrs. Gaffin and Knudsen). Two alternates (Messrs. Strimple and I. Davis) were elected. They became members shortly after the assembly due to the resignation of two of the original members (Messrs. Conn and Silva). The recommittal motion further instructed that "an exegesis of passages relevant to the debate over the role of women in ordained office be included in the Committee’s report to the 53rd General Assembly." The Committee determined, in the light of this addition to the mandate, not to attempt another systematic treatment of hermeneutical principles. Rather, it sought to identify the texts of Scripture which appear to have the most bearing on the matter and to exegete them raising particular hermeneutical questions as they occurred.


The 53rd General Assembly (1986) continued the committee in order that it might complete the section of women and the diaconate. An alternate (Mr. Reynolds) was elected. He became a member shortly thereafter due to the resignation of Mr. Cottenden. The Committee did not complete the section on the diaconate, but decided to present the partial report which it had prepared for the 53rd General Assembly to the 54th General Assembly.


The 54th General Assembly (1987) recommitted the entire report with the recommendations of the advisory committee to revise and expand the report in order to present a completed report to the 55th General Assembly (1988).