You say "first it was this, then it was that, then it was something else" that we're advocating for. That shows that you are not paying attention. We are advocating for considering ALL of these factors, not just the one verse that you think you can hang your hat on. You can't even define the context, yet you think it's an absolute for all time. That doesn't make sense. If you can't interpret the context and get the passage solidly in the context of what Paul had in mind, you have no business hanging your hat on it. The whole Eve thing is complex and confusing due to the context. You just threw out the context and said "This is where I make my stand."

Sorry, but that's not interpreting the Bible. That's finding a verse to support preconceived ideas. I'm having difficulty taking this seriously, because you are not dealing with the entire context of Scripture.

I think it's much more the decision of the particular churches governing body as to who holds an office in their church and what kind of authority they will have. I am sure they will justify their decision based on their own perspective of the bible, surely not mine.

Just answering the question as asked.

"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." That might be complex and confusing to you. To the rest of us, it's pretty plain.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative with you. Honestly, I just cannot follow what you are trying to say. You quoted me, but I did not write what is in your quote, so I just can't answer that. What I actually wrote seemed pretty clear and accurate to me. "My major contention in this thread initially was with saying that Paul's statement about women leadership was made to a specific congregation. That is not true. Then it was the contention that, because there are a handful of women in the Bible mentioned in, or around, leadership, then we should ignore Paul's directive. Those are the things I object to. How we interpret the Bible should be a matter of honesty, altogether apart from our own personal feelings."

Again, I certainly wish you well. I struggle to follow your thinking, but perhaps that is on me.

As talaniman posted, it will be up to the particular church board. I've already said twice I see no problem with it so far as scripture goes. I guess we have talked it to death.

'"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." That might be complex and confusing to you. To the rest of us, it's pretty plain. '

Who exactly is "the rest of us"? It's pretty plain IF you rip it out of its context the way you keep doing. I've already addressed that. If you can't explain the entire passage - you know, the part that puts tons of qualifiers on that statement - then you cannot legitimately hang your hat on it and make a doctrine out of it.

That's not exegesis. It's eisegesis.

OK. One more time.

1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife... (i.e. a man)

2. Titus 1:5 5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man...

3. 1 Timothy 2:12,13 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [h]created, and then Eve.

4. All 12 disciples... men.

5. Every apostle a man with one possible (but not certain) exception.

6. Every named author of a Bible book was a man.

The weight of evidence seems overwhelming to me, but everyone has to make their own mind up.

Quote:

---

4. All 12 disciples... men.

5. Every apostle a man with one possible (but not certain) exception.

---

And that was because....

Quote:

---

6. Every named author of a Bible book was a man.

---

Ruth. Esther.

Oh good grief. 10 minutes on the internet would show you that no one believes Ruth was the author of Ruth or Esther was the author of Esther. I can only assume you take this to be some sort of entertainment. I'm done.

How about responding to my first comment. That will help you with the second one.

Why were women's names put on those books?

Entertainment? No. Helping you to think culturally and historically, as well as exegetically? Yes.

OK. One more time, just so I can say I did.

"How about responding to my first comment. That will help you with the second one."
Your first comment was, "And that was because..."
The best answer is this. It was because that was the consistent pattern of leadership approved of God throughout the Bible. There were exceptions, but they were very rare.

"Why were women's names put on those books?"
Just the slightest bit of thought would show that they were named after the women who were the main characters of the book. Does this show that women are important in the Bible as people of faith and character? Absolutely. Does it portray these two women as leaders in Israel? Nope. Does it indicate they wrote those books? No. Again, just troubling yourself slightly to research this would have shown that to you.

History and culture help shed light on the Bible, but do not change the clear teaching and patterns of the Bible.

Again, I have no ill will towards you. However, given a choice between listening to the plain and clear teaching of the Bible versus listening to Wondergirl, I'm going with the Bible.

"It was because that was the consistent pattern of leadership approved of God throughout the Bible. There were exceptions, but they were very rare."

There are two kinds of presentations of this kind of thing in the Bible: descriptive and prescriptive. There is no real indication that male leadership was "approved of God." It was the culture of the time. Men dominated everything. And when God gave Israel a king, it was a punishment for not having faith in Him. During the time before that we had Deborah leading all of Israel on equal footing with the male judges. So it would appear that male-centric leadership in the Bible is descriptive of the way it was done at the time, not prescriptive.

And it sure isn't prescriptive for all time, because if it is, then you also have to conclude that things like genocide are "approved of God" for all time. I doubt you're prepared to do that.

You're taking something descriptive and trying to make it prescriptive. That's a rookie mistake.

" just troubling yourself slightly to research this would have shown that to you."

Could you be more patronizing, especially when you have no idea whom you are addressing? You might want to check out WG's background before you talk down to her like that.

You say, "There is no real indication that male leadership was 'approved of God'." God directly chose hundreds of men from Noah to Nehemiah to the apostles. Of course He approved them. I see no indication in scripture of any change of leadership that would take place in the future. You say the culture of the time influenced God's decisions. I would say that God's decisions influenced the culture. We desperately need the same thing to happen to our culture.

I think your situation is that you have made up your mind, and now you are trying to justify your belief with the Bible. That is backwards. So you have to put forward the "descriptive vs. prescriptive" distinction when it does not apply here.

I don't mean to speak down to anyone. If I came across that way, then my apologies for that. My ambition is to put forward Jesus as the Savior of sinners and the Bible as the foundation for all faith and practice.

You are using arguments from silence, which always cut both ways. Maybe brush up on logic. It reminds me of the time Dennis the Menace and his dad wanted to go somewhere, and dad said, ask your mom. Dennis went inside and mom was running the vacuum. So he said, "Ok if me 'n' dad go do such and such?" Of course she didn't hear him. He came back out and his dad asked, "What did she say?" Dennis replied, "She didn't say no!"

That's what your reasoning sounds like.

Here's a little adage for you to chew on: absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

And from Rehoboam on, I don't know of anybody who really believes God chose all those clowns who led the divided kingdom. You like to mistake the regular culture of the time for God's direct action, except it doesn't work that way. God "chose" Saul as Israel's first king and we know how that turned out.

Silence? If Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra, Samuel, Ezekiel, Elisha, Elijah, Hosea, Jonah, Zechariah, David, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, John the Baptist, the apostles, Paul, Titus, Timothy, and a multitude of others is silence(note: all men chosen by God), then we need to get a hearing test. Not to mention, as I already have, the plain and clear instructions of 1 Timothy 3:2ff, Titus 1:5ff, or 1 Timothy 2:12,13 (prescriptive, not descriptive). To argue that this is an absence of evidence is really stunning, especially from someone who has little other evidence than the judge Debra. Now if you prefer to be led by our current culture, then that is your privilege. But please stop suggesting that a hurricane of testimony is an argument from silence.

An argument from silence would be as follows: "There are but a smattering of women leaders in the Bible, but there are dozens, if not hundreds, of men. There are several scriptures that plainly speak of men in leadership in the church, but none that call for female leadership. However, I contend that, since the Bible does not say that in the 21st century that will not change, then I choose to believe we should therefore now have an abundance of female leadership. Since the Bible does not mention the 21st century, then I appeal to silence."

Whose case does that most resemble in this discussion?

I will plainly state that I am an enthusiastic supporter of women in the ministry and believe that there is abundant opportunity for women in ministry. I'm convinced that we ignore the advice and counsel of wise women to our own peril. Women should be listened to, valued, treasured as gospel ministers, and honored before the Lord Jesus. My dear wife is my chief counselor and partner in life, and I would feel lost without her. Should women, as a general rule, be leaders in the church, or be the prominent teacher in a church? No. Not unless we can get the Bible to read in a different way than it clearly does. Is the door open to the occasional exception? Probably.

Honestly, I can't figure out what your position is or what your objection is. There is no silence in the Bible on this topic, so I'm perplexed. I don't like it when I can't figure out where a person is coming from. So, can I respectfully ask you a question? What are you arguing in favor of? What do you want to see happen on this topic? I would really like to know.

As I said before, you need to study some logic. You do not know what an argument from silence is.

Quote:

---

all men [were] chosen by God

---

God worked within their male-dominated culture. Had He put women in charge, He would have witnessed a tumultuous uprising.

Quote:

---

Should women, as a general rule, be leaders in the church, or be the prominent teacher in a church?

---

Might be a good idea - would cut down on the greed and corruption, the misuse of donated funds, the sex abuse and molestation, the mind blindness in interpretation of the Scriptures....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

As I said before, you need to study some logic. You do not know what an argument from silence is.

---

My logic is to never follow the words of really ancient man to closely, no matter what part of the world he is from. Too much is lost in time and translation. Is it also not logical to seek a personal relationship with a God that YOU understand rather be told by long dead people?

I understand what an argument from silence is. I don't understand how you think I am engaging in it. I regret you did not answer my question.

If I considered the Bible to be merely the words of really ancient people, I wouldn't pay too much attention to it.

"I understand what an argument from silence is. I don't understand how you think I am engaging in it."

Then you don't understand what an argument from silence is.

Hmm. Answering questions is not your strong point. So, using an argument from silence, I know that your silence (in not answering the question) actually means you don't really believe I have been employing an argument from silence. Whew. Glad we got that settled, even though by the use of a logical fallacy.

Best wishes.

If that's logic, the world is in trouble. Arguments from silence always cut both ways. Lack of information about women leaders does not mean there weren't any. We don't have information that they were, and we don't have information that they weren't. Silence is never a good criterion.

You are claiming that women can't be leaders of some certain sort because there's nothing in the Bible that says they can. But there's nothing in the Bible that says they can't. It's already been shown, because you can't explain the entire Timothy passage that puts qualifiers on the "no way" statement, that it doesn't necessarily mean what you want it to mean. You have just glossed over all of that and hung your hat on one verse. That's not Bible study, that's reading one's own ideas into the text.

I'm done here. You do not understand logic, you have no grasp of Bible exegesis, and you are unwilling to listen and learn. Goodbye.

Your problem was in not having any scripture to back up whatever your point was, so you had to resort to personal attacks. My contention, of course, was that when leaders are named, they were typically men. That is not an argument from silence. Very sorry you can't see that, but yeah, we've talked it to death.

Quote:

---

My contention, of course, was that when leaders are named, they were typically men.

---

That was because God worked with the culture that had been established. God didn't dictate the rules of engagement. He had given mankind free will to establish their own governments and policies and systems.

Quote:

---

My contention, of course, was that when leaders are named, they were typically men.

---

I said that simply to demonstrate that I am not making an argument from silence.

Your observation, with all due respect, is only speculation. It is not stated anywhere in the Bible. When Israel occupied the Promised Land, it would seem to have been an ideal opportunity to change culture. That, in fact, happened in a variety of ways, but not in the area of leadership. It is more logical to me to simply understand that God ordered the culture, not the other way around. If a person wants to walk in accordance with our current culture, then I get that, but it does not change the teachings of Scripture.

Quote:

---

If a person wants to walk in accordance with our current culture, then I get that, but it does not change the teachings of Scripture

---

So if Christian women become pastors, teachers, even SS superintendents, that would be against God's will?

I think that would be too strong of a statement. I would be content to simply say that God's pattern of leadership, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, was to use men. Were there exceptions to that? Yes, so I would have to conclude there could be exceptions now as well, but they were infrequent and the pattern was quite clear. I honestly don't see how anyone could read the Bible and come to any different conclusion. But when you say, "That was because God worked with the culture that had been established," I don't see how anyone could know that. The Bible, so far as I know, does not indicate that. In fact, your reference to the prevailing culture just strikes me as curious. God always worked to transform cultures, not adjust to them. The NT church was counter-cultural in a striking manner, and yet the leadership even there came, primarily, from men.

I probably shouldn't butt in here, but you know who rushes in where wise men fear to tread.

It seems to me that a book, or collection of books, that covers about a thousand years and is written by many authors containing almost one million words and is from God himself, should have mentioned/approved the idea of women in leadership/preaching roles. Apparently, he didn't (except as noted). So what does that mean?


As for me, following the discussion, and (I think) understanding both sides, it seems the issue is how one interprets the Bible. Has God said everything there is to be said once and for all re salvation? Or, as we grow and evolve, has God left room for the species to widen its understanding on the path to salvation – not changing what has already been written in the Bible but deepening it?

I think where we get hung up is when one side declares the other side to be invalid.


Btw, I wonder if the original poster got his answer?

Quote:

---

Btw, I wonder if the original poster got his answer?

---

Ha! I imagine he got more than he bargained for.

"Has God said everything there is to be said once and for all re salvation? Or, as we grow and evolve, has God left room for the species to widen its understanding on the path to salvation – not changing what has already been written in the Bible but deepening it?"

Concerning salvation, yes he has. Concerning other stuff related to day-to-day life in the 21st century, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Concerning salvation, yes he has. Concerning other stuff related to day-to-day life in the 21st century, not so much.

---

Thanks for replying.

I understand your answer to be yes - that a woman can be a Sunday School Superintendent according to the Bible. What I didn't understand was the second part of your answer - "Concerning other stuff related to day-to-day life in the 21st century, not so much".

My question would remain, "How do you know that? How do you know that salvation is a settled issue, but other issues related to the 21st century are not settled?" The Bible, so far as I know, has not said that.

The question, I think, is always a simple one. Either the Bible will tell us how to live, or we will tell the Bible how we will live. Now does the Bible mention the internet, or cars, or buses and trains? No, so there are areas where it is silent, and therefore we have to work out God's will on them. But it speaks in great measure about morality, marriage, children, the sanctity of human life, and yes, leadership in the church, as well as many other areas.

Athos, you have asked a great question. I'm glad dwashbur answered you. Honestly, this whole thread has grown tense and tedious to me. We have talked it to death with very little agreement, and I regret that. Questions are asked but not answered, and that is also regrettable.

Man is an imperfect creature, even when speaking for GOD. Ancient man more so as his knowledge was well limited by the time. For sure though each man (Or woman to be PC) can make his own choice in accordance to his own faith, and live in that choice.

Happy journey, may you find your answers.

It's either true or it's not. If it's true, then we should follow it. If not, then we should discard it.

Faith is about believing not knowing. Even knowing has no absolutes.

If knowing has no absolutes, then you cannot know absolutely that knowing has no absolutes. It's a self contradictory statement.

Now if we want to say that we can never know everything, then we are in agreement.

Quote:

---

It's either true or it's not.

---

And truth is determined how?

Quote:

---

And truth is determined how?

---

That's the whole point. Jesus in John 17:17 stated, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The Word of God is the summation of truth. It is the measuring rod, the standard by which truth is determined, and the foundation upon which all truth is built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's the whole point. Jesus in John 17:17 stated, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

---

Thus, anything that's in the Bible is true and is to be taken literally.

The Bible, like all literature, contains idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, and analogies, and there would therefore be sections not to be taken literally. Jesus, for instance, when He describes Himself as the door to the sheepfold, does not intend for us to literally see Him as a door. When we are described as sheep, we are not to be thought of literally as sheep. But as a general rule, with some commonsense exceptions, the Bible is to be taken literally.

Is the Bible true? Yes.

Athos,
What I mean is, the Bible gives everything a person needs to know to be reconciled to the God of the Bible and become part of His/Her/Its intimate family.

It can't tell us anything about Sunday School because that's a 19th century invention that has morphed over the decades into something that doesn't remotely resemble its beginnings. The Bible says nothing about such things, so we have to do the best we can figuring it out.

That's what I meant by day-do-day life in the 21st century, not so much. It tells us plenty about what our attitudes are supposed to be, but it doesn't deal with specific behaviors or hierarchical structures such as the church at large has developed across the centuries. Some things, it leaves us to figure out for ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The Bible, like all literature, contains idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, and analogies, and there would therefore be sections not to be taken literally. Jesus, for instance, when He describes Himself as the door to the sheepfold, does not intend for us to literally see Him as a door. When we are described as sheep, we are not to be thought of literally as sheep. But as a general rule, with some commonsense exceptions, the Bible is to be taken literally.

Is the Bible true? Yes.

---

As best as humans can make it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

It has passed through many hands over time.