# Women Learning & Under Authority



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

From an Exposition of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 by the Wales minister Geoffrey Thomas:



> So Eve swiftly lost the ability to reason correctly. She did not think through the issue. She did not consult her husband. She did not mistrust her feelings and cast herself on the Word of God crying to the Lord to help her. She listened to the serpent and decided herself that eating the fruit would be beneficial for knowledge. Her husband also fell, yes, but she alone lost the ability to reason correctly. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that this is another reason why women may not teach and have authority over men.
> 
> In response to this some people have argued saying that Eve’s weakness is invalidated by today’s educated women. Gary W. McHale replies, “This is an incredible statement. The twentieth century woman is superior to Eve in her ability to make moral judgments! In what way? Because of education. If this is true then is not twentieth century man also superior to Adam? They claim to be educated and superior to the women of the past – a 20th century woman depraved in nature (as men are as well), a slave to sin and raised up with human education has become superior to Eve. What kind of 20th century education is required to be superior to Eve? What grade level do you need to get to gain this status? Surely this comment about ‘today’s educated woman’ reminds you of the fact that Eve too thought that by eating the fruit she would gain superior knowledge. It appears to me that the feminists are repeating Eve’s mistake. This time they appeal to human knowledge, our educational system, and not to the Word of God as the basis for judgment” (“Adam and Eve Before the Fall,” Gary W.McHale, p.33, Canadian Christian Publications, 30 Harding Blvd. Ste. W.612, Richmond Hill, L4C 9M3, Canada). But Scripture clearly shows us that Eve was deceived while Adam wasn’t and that this difference is another justification for male authority at home and in church.



&



> Gary W McHale observes how in that very punishment itself male authority is demonstrated: “consider that the punishment given to the woman in no way affects the man, but the punishment given to the man also affects the woman. The man doesn’t receive pain during sexual intercourse with the woman, since that is his part of being fruitful, nor is the man told that he would desire the woman and be ruled by her. However, to toil the ground is unproductive and hard work for either gender, not just the man, and both also return to the dust of the ground. If man’s punishment is hard work then why is it hard work for the woman as well? If man is to return to the ground from whence he came then why doesn’t the woman return to the side of the man? All the punishments that Adam receive are also binding on Eve, but none of the punishments that Eve receive are binding on Adam. His punishment becomes her punishment because as the leader those under him are given his punishment as well” (ibid, p.34).
> 
> The citizens under the rule of King David suffered because of his wickedness. He was their federal head. So too Adam’s punishment is passed on to Eve because his was the primary role. The creation too groans because of Adam; the ground is cursed; the animals return to dust and they are in pain in childbirth – Eve’s punishment is passed on to them.



I found the above 2 quotes very thought provoking and both seemed To be a faithful exegesis. The full sermon is very edifying and balanced. I was given this little booklet “Women Speaking in Church” from Solid Ground Christian Books. The pastor’s sermon can be found here:

Part 1 - http://geoffthomas.org/index.php/gtsermons/211-13-women-learning-and-under-authority-2/
Part 2 - http://geoffthomas.org/index.php/gtsermons/214-15-women-sinners-and-saved/

Due to recent discussions, I finally decided to read the little booklet.

P.S. And NO...the Minster does not let Adam off the hook, he notes that Adam though not deceived, went into the rebellion with eyes wide open, to his own shame.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 5, 2020)

G said:


> the late Wales minister Geoffrey Thomas


Late Welsh minister? I am certain he is still alive (he has retired from his church ministry but still carries on an itinerant ministry).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Late Welsh minister? I am certain he is still alive (he has retired from his church ministry but still carries on an itinerant ministry).


Received & Corrected.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 5, 2020)

Still waiting for the argument, that explains how the deception of Eve (by the serpent) is a statement about, or even is a statement in Genesis taken by Paul to mean, the (relative) _gullibility of women_, that they are the more gullible or less reasonable sex_._

Eve did fall into deception, but there's no reason to infer from Gen.3 that her stumble is reflective of some "natural fact" that affects all her daughters in the same way. I certainly don't think Paul draws that inference from Gen.3 in his (1Tim.2) context either to illustrate or justify his contention.

There's a pesky middle premise that some preachers and exegetes just won't grant, assuming that the argument is even thought that carefully through. I'm not going to accept as "given" any such premise that is not Scriptural. And I'm certainly not going accept one that is "natural theology." I'm quite sure Paul makes no such appeal.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Still waiting for the argument, that explains how the deception of Eve (by the serpent) is a statement about, or even is a statement in Genesis taken by Paul to mean, the (relative) _gullibility of women_, that they are the more gullible or less reasonable sex_._
> 
> Eve did fall into deception, but there's no reason to infer from Gen.3 that her stumble is reflective of some "natural fact" that affects all her daughters in the same way. I certainly don't think Paul draws that inference from Gen.3 in his (1Tim.2) context either to illustrate or justify his contention.
> 
> There's a pesky middle premise that some preachers and exegetes just won't grant, assuming that the argument is even thought that carefully through. I'm not going to accept as "given" any such premise that is not Scriptural. And I'm certainly not going accept one that is "natural theology." I'm quite sure Paul makes no such appeal.



Exactly. If people want to take the Genesis 3 narrative to mean that women are naturally gullible today, then they must also say--by strictest logic--that men are naturally limp-wristed cowards.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Still waiting for the argument, that explains how the deception of Eve (by the serpent) is a statement about, or even is a statement in Genesis taken by Paul to mean, the (relative) _gullibility of women_, that they are the more gullible or less reasonable sex_._
> 
> Eve did fall into deception, but there's no reason to infer from Gen.3 that her stumble is reflective of some "natural fact" that affects all her daughters in the same way. I certainly don't think Paul draws that inference from Gen.3 in his (1Tim.2) context either to illustrate or justify his contention.
> 
> There's a pesky middle premise that some preachers and exegetes just won't grant, assuming that the argument is even thought that carefully through. I'm not going to accept as "given" any such premise that is not Scriptural. And I'm certainly not going accept one that is "natural theology." I'm quite sure Paul makes no such appeal.


I would read the full sermon if your interested, as he is not saying what you propose he is saying. I hope the below will help clear that up Pastor Bruce & Jacob, as it stands it would seem you are drawing Pastor Thomas’s conclusion for him, wrongly (From Part 2 of the linked sermon in the OP):



> One presumes that at this time Adam was doing what God has told him to do in the garden, “to work it and take care of it” (Gen.2:15). The serpent then comes to the woman whose calling was to be her husband’s helper. Is there any reason that he chose to tempt her first? Was Eve weaker? We know that she was different from the man. We know that neither man nor woman was created with a built-in impregnability to temptation. That does not impugn the goodness or power of God. The Lord Jesus himself, the express image of God, was tempted. The Bible does not say that a woman is more prone to deception than a man. It is not that women are more gullible than men, and so for that reason cannot be teachers. In Paul’s epistle to Titus he encourages older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3), and in his second epistle to Timothy the apostle speaks warmly of the influence the teaching of Timothy’s mother and grandmother had upon the young man. The simple fact was that Satan devised to approach first what the apostle Peter calls “the weaker partner” (I Pet. 3:7). Shakespeare said, “Frailty, thy name is woman.” Though we all recognise that women are weaker than men in terms of upper body strength the weakness referred to by the New Testament is in terms of authority within marriage. Husbands, who have the strength of their authority, are not to misuse their power and be harsh, and bring criticism and conflict into the home.



P.S. I think you both can now agree right? The whole argument is the Pastor refuting those feminist and others who support women teaching and/or preaching to the public gathered church by saying that Paul’s prohibition was cultural. Pastor Thomas rightly points out, in contrast, that Paul stands his prohibition on 2 primary things Creation and the Fall.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 5, 2020)

Yeah, that Satan exploited the weaker vessel in this vital instance. He will continue to do so, and will use every tool at his disposal to reek havoc and sow discord including the utilization of social media to embolden sin and slander of the weaker vessel.

Adam complied so it is basically a moot point, but Satan will use whatever advantage is at his disposal. That’s what I think, I’m always open to correction.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 5, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Still waiting for the argument, that explains how the deception of Eve (by the serpent) is a statement about, or even is a statement in Genesis taken by Paul to mean, the (relative) _gullibility of women_, that they are the more gullible or less reasonable sex_._
> 
> Eve did fall into deception, but there's no reason to infer from Gen.3 that her stumble is reflective of some "natural fact" that affects all her daughters in the same way. I certainly don't think Paul draws that inference from Gen.3 in his (1Tim.2) context either to illustrate or justify his contention.
> 
> There's a pesky middle premise that some preachers and exegetes just won't grant, assuming that the argument is even thought that carefully through. I'm not going to accept as "given" any such premise that is not Scriptural. And I'm certainly not going accept one that is "natural theology." I'm quite sure Paul makes no such appeal.


Can we infer that she should have consulted her male head/authority (and a related point for teaching and instruction 1 Timothy 2 when properly appointed?).

Ultimately, it has more to say about the beguiler than the beguiled I believe.

“The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’ ”

- Genesis 2:15–17

Adam was the accountable one. If Adam resisted there would have been no eternal consequence. There is no room to scapegoat Eve here. This is applicable to our day as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Jul 5, 2020)

So, uh, would you rather have your wife or daughter reading Aimee Byrd, or watching Joel Osteen on TV? Or TD Jakes? Is the fact that a preacher is male your top priority? Could you listen to old reruns of Elizabeth Elliott on the radio and be edified? 

Don't misunderstand me. I believe in ordained male church leadership and I wear a head covering at church. But sometimes the emphasis on this subject seems petty and foolish. There are men sliding into error out there all over the place even in traditional Reformed circles. If I were you I'd spend some time in prayer repenting on behalf of fellow men, who are not what they should be, and give women a break from guys harping on this. I don't listen to my husband and think about what he says because his genitals are different, I listen and respect him because of his devotion to the Lord and pursuit of good theology and deep thinking. 

By the way, what is that part about pain during intercourse supposed to mean?? The implication is that men don't have it and women do? Not sure how much I can say here appropriately, but if a wife has pain instead of pleasure, please get good help, medical, or whatever counseling is needed. Is that supposed to allude just to actual childbirth? Very badly worded. Might not be the best booklet to give to the ladies. LOL.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K (Jul 5, 2020)

Certainly, in our proper roles as men and women in the church and in the family, we point to—and even reenact, in a way—key scenes from the gospel story: creation, the fall, the proclamation of God's word, redemption, Christ's love for the church. This gives honor to _both_ roles. They are both pointing to something far more glorious than the presumed worldly glory (or non-glory) of being a husband or a wife, a preacher or a hearer. They point to God, and to his people and their salvation.

I can see much value in pondering this, so that our eyes are not set on what appears more honorable from a worldly perspective but rather become focused on Christ. In this way, as both men and women we embrace our respective gospel-pointing roles with appropriate humility, and also with great joy.

But I cannot see much value in speculating about why the serpent interacted primarily with the woman rather than with the man. The Bible simply does not tell us. And most of our speculation tends to lead us to making generalizations about all men or all women—when the point is for us to see the gospel story about Christ and his church (all of us) rather than a men vs. women commentary. Besides, does any one of us (male or female) seriously think that if the serpent had approached us we would have had some inner fortitude to respond differently? Preposterous!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

lynnie said:


> If I were you I'd spend some time in prayer repenting on behalf of fellow men, who are not what they should be, and give women a break from guys harping on this.


Are you asking me to repent of something?


Regarding your other statements, I would just say it appears your not following the Minister or you have not read the fuller context.



lynnie said:


> So, uh, would you rather have your wife or daughter reading Aimee Byrd, or watching Joel Osteen on TV? Or TD Jakes?


None of the above.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

Jack K said:


> Certainly, in our proper roles as men and women in the church and in the family, we point to—and even reenact, in a way—key scenes from the gospel story: creation, the fall, the proclamation of God's word, redemption, Christ's love for the church. This gives honor to _both_ roles. They are both pointing to something far more glorious than the presumed worldly glory (or non-glory) of being a husband or a wife, a preacher or a hearer. They point to God, and to his people and their salvation.
> 
> I can see much value in pondering this, so that our eyes are not set on what appears more honorable from a worldly perspective but rather become focused on Christ. In this way, as both men and women we embrace our respective gospel-pointing roles with appropriate humility, and also with great joy.
> 
> But I cannot see much value in speculating about why the serpent interacted primarily with the woman rather than with the man. The Bible simply does not tell us. And most of our speculation tends to lead us to making generalizations about all men or all women—when the point is for us to see the gospel story about Christ and his church (all of us) rather than a men vs. women commentary. Besides, does any one of us (male or female) seriously think that if the serpent had approached us we would have had some inner fortitude to respond differently? Preposterous!


Jack, To be fair the Pastor brings up the discussion because Paul (The inspired Apostle) brings it up in his reasoning behind the prohibition he gives in 1 Timothy 2. Yes sometimes we can miss the main thrust of the Fall by getting into the weeds. I don’t think Pastor Thomas is guilty of that, due to him simply trying to follow Paul’s logic.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 5, 2020)

G said:


> Jack, To be fair the Pastor brings up the discussion because Paul (The inspired Apostle) brings it up in his reasoning behind the prohibition he gives in 1 Timothy 2. Yes sometimes we can miss the main thrust of the Fall by getting into the weeds. I don’t think Pastor Thomas is guilty of gat, due to him simply trying to follows Paul’s logic.



Paul assigns some culpability to the woman because she was the one deceived. She has that role in the story. But Paul does not say she was deceived, or approached in the first place, _because_ she was a woman and not a man. We simply don't know why she was the one to converse with the serpent, or even whether she was alone when approached. We too quickly read into it more than it says (as do the feminists who read it and are aghast).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

Jack K said:


> Paul assigns some culpability to the woman because she was the one deceived. She has that role in the story. But Paul does not say she was deceived, or approached in the first place, _because_ she was a woman and not a man. We simply don't know why she was the one to converse with the serpent, or even whether she was alone when approached. We too quickly read into it more than it says (as do the feminists who read it and are aghast).


All the pastor highlights is that Satan decided to approach the weaker vessel. He then demonstrates that the women is not naturally weaker in essence (or moral character) but in her assigned authority. Am I missing this speculation you so charge? All I read is a minister helping the hearer navigate some questions that I think would come natural to a student of scripture, but confining the answer to what we actually are told. I would encourage you to read the 3 quotes I’ve listed so far, a second time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Jul 5, 2020)

G said:


> All the pastor highlights is that Satan decided to approach the weaker vessel. He then demonstrates that the women is not naturally weaker in essence (or moral character) but in her assigned authority. Am I missing this speculation you so charge? All I read is a minister helping the hearer navigate some questions that I think would come natural to a student of scripture, but confining the answer to what we actually are told. I would encourage you to read the 3 quotes I’ve listed so far, a second time.



I did read them, and I just read them a second time, and I cannot tell whether or not the man you quote is supposing that the woman was approached because of some inherent womanly weakness. At places it sounds like he might mean this, and at other places it does not. This is just as well, as I don't wish to criticize any particular pastor anyway. This is why I carefully avoided naming him or disagreeing with him directly.

I do think it's a mistake to assume that the serpent approached Eve because of some weakness inherent to women. There's just too much in that statement that the Bible doesn't tell us with certainty.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 5, 2020)

Woman as the "weaker" vessel does not primarily mean her lesser assigned authority. It is also referring to her nature, and her natural strengths and weaknesses. 
Otherwise why would I Peter 3:7 say things such as, 

"…Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. "


Why treat her in understanding as being a weaker vessel if that weakness is only seen in her assigned authority and not in her nature? 

What is so delicate about her? It is more than merely her physical frame and her lesser assigned role. Many commentators in the past speak of woman's nature as being more emotional, less logically-driven, and yes, more prone to gullibility. Just look at how Western women vote and what they support if you don't believe me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

Jack K said:


> I did read them, and I just read them a second time, and I cannot tell whether or not the man you quote is supposing that the woman was approached because of some inherent womanly weakness. At places it sounds like he might mean this, and at other places it does not. This is just as well, as I don't wish to criticize any particular pastor anyway. This is why I carefully avoided naming him or disagreeing with him directly.
> 
> I do think it's a mistake to assume that the serpent approached Eve because of some weakness inherent to women. There's just too much in that statement that the Bible doesn't tell us with certainty.


And he would agree. I will quote again what he concludes “weaker vessel” to mean.



> The Bible does not say that a woman is more prone to deception than a man. It is not that women are more gullible than men, and so for that reason cannot be teachers. In Paul’s epistle to Titus he encourages older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3), and in his second epistle to Timothy the apostle speaks warmly of the influence the teaching of Timothy’s mother and grandmother had upon the young man. The simple fact was that Satan devised to approach first what the apostle Peter calls “the weaker partner” (I Pet. 3:7). Shakespeare said, “Frailty, thy name is woman.” Though we all recognise that women are weaker than men in terms of upper body strength the weakness referred to by the New Testament is in terms of authority within marriage. Husbands, who have the strength of their authority, are not to misuse their power and be harsh, and bring criticism and conflict into the home.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 5, 2020)

The Apostle Paul was not talking about how much women can bench-press.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

@Pergamum

I tend to agree with what you have said so far regarding this topic brother. I now feel caught in defending several allegations made towards the Pastor who is cleary NOT saying what people are saying he is saying (versus actually laying out my own position).


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 5, 2020)

Jack K said:


> Certainly, in our proper roles as men and women in the church and in the family, we point to—and even reenact, in a way—key scenes from the gospel story: creation, the fall, the proclamation of God's word, redemption, Christ's love for the church. This gives honor to _both_ roles. They are both pointing to something far more glorious than the presumed worldly glory (or non-glory) of being a husband or a wife, a preacher or a hearer. They point to God, and to his people and their salvation.
> 
> I can see much value in pondering this, so that our eyes are not set on what appears more honorable from a worldly perspective but rather become focused on Christ. In this way, as both men and women we embrace our respective gospel-pointing roles with appropriate humility, and also with great joy.
> 
> But I cannot see much value in speculating about why the serpent interacted primarily with the woman rather than with the man. The Bible simply does not tell us. And most of our speculation tends to lead us to making generalizations about all men or all women—when the point is for us to see the gospel story about Christ and his church (all of us) rather than a men vs. women commentary. Besides, does any one of us (male or female) seriously think that if the serpent had approached us we would have had some inner fortitude to respond differently? Preposterous!


My understanding was that the serpent interacted with the woman because the woman does not appear to have had the commandment to not eat of the tree directly from God, while Adam did. I forget where I read that. Might have been Vos.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## lynnie (Jul 5, 2020)

No Grant, I was not talking about you or anybody here. 

There is a pattern in the OT of repenting on behalf of others. Here is one example. Daniel 9:5-7. We, We, us. 

_We have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly land rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. _

Daniel wasn't wicked and rebellious, but in intercession he took on the sins of others, confessing them and interceeding as one of them. Jeremiah in Lamentations was the same way. "We have sinned, we have rebelled". He identified with the sins of his people. Then there is Jesus, whose identification with the sins of mankind saved us. That is what intercession is. 

I've spent my life with Christian women, and they don't want to be hard or rebellious. They want to be relaxed and safe around good men. But so many men are difficult. Its more than just bad doctrine, it's all kinds of character issues, whether control freaks or wimping out emotionally in difficult times or anger or p0rn. I've seen some hard women get kind of friendly and relaxed around my husband over the years and chat with him, because his is "safe", but not in a wimpy way. Maybe part of the problem with women usurping authority is a reaction to men? 

One thing I've noticed online the past maybe 10-15 years is the effect of church leaders dealing very badly with sex abuse cases. I followed the SGM/Mahaney mess simply because we had been in one of their churches in the 90s and I was aghast. Its one thing that pedophiles exist, and go to jail or don't go to jail, but it is another thing to read writings by guys like Boz T ( rhymes with religion, can't spell it) about how maybe 3/4 of the time church leaders rally around the perps and throw the victims under the bus. I'm talking kids here, not consenting adults. 

Watching all those TGC guys and T4G was just awful, the way they rushed to defend Mahaney. I knew personally one woman whose hub did go to jail, but the SGM leaders pressured her to take him back to her home and her bed when he was paroled, even though he fooled around with their own children ( she refused). Eventually Mohler saw the light and dumped Mahaney, but not until Rachel Denhollander, a lawyer (and a woman!) sat down with him and reviewed the SGM lies. Along the way Todd P and Trueman spoke up wisely and with concern for the abuse victims, but the TGC guys who blogged on it were, well, often disgraceful, in my personal opinion. ( I'm not referring to Detwiler in my post, who is his own set of major problems, so please don't think I'm referring to his writings). 

It wasn't just that mess, there were spin off articles to other churches and denominations and pedophiles. The underlying theme generally was instant defenses by the church leaders and refusals to apologize for bungled situations, and accusations blaming victims. I don't want to go looking for links, they are out there. Boz has good material on his site. Then there was the list of stories by those under Driscoll, and what seemed for the longest time the failure of his Calvinist buddies to speak up or do anything. I'm not saying it should have all been out on the internet, but it was a sordid mess for sure. That was adults, not kids, but still in the category of leaders' bungled dealings with abusive men. 

Over the past 10-15 years I've seen a striking change in many women towards male church leaders. Women who won't go to church, and a lot of cynicism. I had to fight it myself and I wasn't even in a church with this going on. You find it hard to trust. I don't want to even read TGC anymore. I used to think so highly of Piper, now I would not cross the street to hear him. 

Anyway, I need to get going. I think you should try intercessory repenting for the screwed up mess out there among male church leaders, even if not representing the PB, and pray earnestly for them, and give up the focus on unsubmissive women. Your goal is fine, but you are going about it the wrong way. Change the men first. Isn't that what leadership is all about?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 5, 2020)

lynnie said:


> No Grant, I was not talking about you or anybody here.
> 
> There is a pattern in the OT of repenting on behalf of others. Here is one example. Daniel 9:5-7. We, We, us.
> 
> ...


I'm not really sure how far we can apply that representative/intercessory principle, lynnie. And I mean that: I'd be interested to hear if someone has worked through this more thoroughly.

In each example you cite, we have a case of someone with God-given leadership or intercessory role--a prophet in each case, if not a priest--representing his people in their sins. 

Do I really have the place or the right to represent and intercede for, say, CJ Mahaney? A (former) officer in a denomination utterly disconnected from me? As a Christian husband and father, I feel like I can represent and intercede for my family, and my church, if I were still a church officer. Beyond that, I would be hesitant to take that role. I don't see any example in the Bible--correct me if I'm wrong here--of a lay-person taking it on themselves to represent or intercede for their leaders without being given that role.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 5, 2020)

I think it’s a matter of headship and God’s ordained order which is being advocated, nothing less. When we do it properly that is great responsibility. Men are blowing it in so many ways - too many to count. So us men must become childlike in our dependence on Jesus. If there is an issue where women are mistreated we should step up, not step aside and let a women assume the authority of the man to fill a void in leadership in an attempt to make things right. This would be a double offense, in my opinion. We must do what is pleasing in God’s sight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

An encouragement to the noblest job on earth, mothers working at home to train their children, from the* late* Robert L. Dabney‘s work entitled_ The Public Preaching of Women_:



> Again, the instrumentality of the mother’s training in the salvation of her children is mighty and decisive; the influence of the minister over his hundreds is slight and non-essential. If he contributes a few grains, in numerous cases, to turn the scales for heaven, the mother contributes tons to the right scales in her few cases. The one works more widely on the surface, the other more deeply; so that the real amount of soil moved by though two workmen is not usually in favor of the preacher. The woman of sanctified ambition has nothing to regret as to the dignity of her sphere. She does the noblest work that is done on earth. Its public recognition is usually more through the children and beneficiaries she ennobles than through her own person. True ; and that is precisely the feature of her work which makes it most Christ-like. It is precisely the feature at which a sinful and selfish ambition takes offence.



I have the booklet, but the E-version can be found here:


The Public Preaching of Women – by R.L. Dabney | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind



Again this is ordinary prescription in my mind, as I readily acknowledge extraordinary circumstances.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 5, 2020)

G, from your OP, quoting the Pastor: “... but [Eve] alone lost the ability to reason correctly. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that this is another reason why women may not teach and have authority over men.”

Does the pastor’s phrase “lost the ability to reason correctly” = Eve was deceived? If so, doesn’t he say here that Eve’s being deceived is a reason Paul forbids women to teach and have authority over men?

I think this is causing the pushback. But then the Pastor says (quoting again from the OP):

“The Bible does not say that a woman is more prone to deception than a man. It is not that women are more gullible than men, and so for that reason cannot be teachers. In Paul’s epistle to Titus he encourages older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3), and in his second epistle to Timothy the apostle speaks warmly of the influence the teaching of Timothy’s mother and grandmother had upon the young man.”

The Pastor’s words here: “The simple fact was that Satan devised to approach first what the apostle Peter calls “the weaker partner” (I Pet. 3:7)— prompted a memory of an older PB thread worth perusing. A quote from it:

“...the context [of 1 Timothy 2:14) speaks of a priority. Man first; then the woman. The deception resulted because that order was subverted. It should be clear how this speaks to the overall point that a woman is not permitted to teach a man. The prohibition maintains the order of creation, which in turn removes the occasion for "deception."

I know your OP wasn’t on this aspect (ie the deception of Eve) of woman’s learning and being under authority, but since it provoked conversation on that issue, I thought I’d comment. I want to get a good handle on this because I think the order of creation issue must be really important and have really big ramifications on these issues. Good discussion in the thread below. 

Man is Head of Woman in All Spheres?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> G, from your OP, quoting the Pastor: “... but [Eve] alone lost the ability to reason correctly. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that this is another reason why women may not teach and have authority over men.”
> 
> Does the pastor’s phrase “lost the ability to reason correctly” = Eve was deceived? If so, doesn’t he say here that Eve’s being deceived is a reason Paul forbids women to teach and have authority over men?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link, reading now!

Pastor Thomas notes, as does Paul, that one of the reasons women are not permitted to exercise authority over men in the public church gathering is that Eve was deceived (which is self-confessed by Eve as well in Gen.). The Pastor NOWHERE states or implies that women are by their very nature more easily deceived than men. In fact, he outright denies that here (already quoted above twice):



> The Bible does not say that a woman is more prone to deception than a man. It is not that women are more gullible than men, and so for that reason cannot be teachers.



Again, I’m not stating my own position fully, as I am still working through this. I did not post The OP to somehow pick-up another thread discussion. I apologize if that is what Pastor Bruce thought. I realized after postIng the quotes that more than one here were reading the Pastor entirely wrong. I will happily stand corrected if shown a quote from those two sermons, which I have read word for word, to the contrary. I will say that I lean more with Perg in that post-fall men and women, by their fallen nature, ordinarily have propensities to sin unique to their sex. Again, key word ordinarily.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Jul 5, 2020)

Grant, 

I do think the sermon is speculating in a very unhelpful way. This speculation has a potentially devastating effect, namely that when I am having a disagreement with my wife that I reason that I have a superior ability to reason _as a man_ and she should listen to me because of her _weakness_. _This is extra-scriptural and completely false_. @Jack K , you mentioned " We simply don't know why she was the one to converse with the serpent..." I think it may be reasonable to look at this in terms of creation order. Man was created first and the head of his wife. Man with the help of his wife were supposed to rule the creation. Satan flipped the creation order upside down. First, the _serpent_ went to the woman who was supposed to rule the creation (including serpents) under the headship of her husband. She _obeys_ the thing she was supposed to rule and does so without the consent of her head (Adam). Adam then _willfully _eats the fruit, listening to the sinful advice of the one he was supposed to lead. In sum, the creation ruled the woman who ruled the man. So why did Satan start with Eve? Because in rebellion, he sought to do things entirely opposite of how they were created to function. We see rebellion _at every point_. 

As a related aside, church officers are men, not because of an intellectual strength they have _as men_, but because the church, as the body of Christ, is _undoing_ the work begun by Satan in the garden. This undoing takes precisely the opposite order than we saw in Paradise. Women should never be thought of in any way inferior in their intellectual ability. Rather, man needed woman _prior_ to sin. Not only because he was lonely, or because he couldn't propagate the race by himself. She _completed _him because by himself he was _insufficient _for the job ahead of him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

timfost said:


> This speculation has a potentially devastating effect, namely that when I am having a disagreement with my wife that I reason that I have a superior ability to reason _as a man_ and she should listen to me because of her _weakness_. _This is extra-scriptural and completely false_.


Please quote from the Pastor’s actual sermon, to document this claim.


----------



## timfost (Jul 5, 2020)

G said:


> Please quote from the Pastor’s actual sermon, to prove this claim.



"Her husband also fell, yes, *but she alone lost the ability to reason correctly*. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that *this is another reason why women may not teach* and have authority over men."

"But Scripture clearly shows us that Eve was deceived while Adam wasn’t and that *this difference is another justification for male authority at home and in church*."


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2020)

timfost said:


> "Her husband also fell, yes, *but she alone lost the ability to reason correctly*. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that *this is another reason why women may not teach* and have authority over men."
> 
> "But Scripture clearly shows us that Eve was deceived while Adam wasn’t and that *this difference is another justification for male authority at home and in church*."


Is this not just re-stating the biblical fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not? Is being deceived not a lack of correct reasoning ? In full sermon context he also highlights Adam’s failures as well.

Prior to this section (4th time now), the Pastor states this:
*”The Bible does not say that a woman is more prone to deception than a man. It is not that women are more gullible than men, and so for that reason cannot be teachers.”*


----------



## bookslover (Jul 6, 2020)

"She alone lost the ability to reason correctly." That's obviously not true. The sin nature affects both sexes, so both sexes have trouble reasoning correctly. I've known guys who have trouble in this area - me included!


----------



## PezLad (Jul 6, 2020)

If we take the image of God to be rationality, we see that both sexes have a defaced image in them, since all sinners are inherently irrational when it comes to morality and spiritual truth, exchanging the truth of God for a lie. However, we have the image of God in an assertive vessel and a receptive vessel and how the mind-body dynamic affects the image of God in both genders is difficult to examine.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

Are women naturally stupider and more gullible? Is that the inference we draw? No one wants to say that, but when you anchor it in "the nature of things," that's sort of what it sounds like.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

I stand by the quotes in the OP and more by my claim that the 2 sermons linked (In totality mind you) represent a balanced approach to this discussion.



bookslover said:


> "She alone lost the ability to reason correctly." That's obviously not true. The sin nature affects both sexes, so both sexes have trouble reasoning correctly. I've known guys who have trouble in this area - me included!


Richard, the Pastor is not saying that that ALL women lost the ability to reason because of Eve. Nor that ALL men kept it because of Adam. Both sexes are now born fallen due to The Fall. The Pastor denies that Women are more easily deceived than men. See Post # 6, or #17, or #26, or # 30.

He is simply saying Eve , in her fall, lost the ability to reason= was deceived. And further that Adam in his fall, was not deceived.

All, I will digress from this. Maybe I‘m wrong, but if not, I am certainly tiring of going in circles.




Jeri Tanner said:


> Does the pastor’s phrase “lost the ability to reason correctly” = Eve was deceived? If so, doesn’t he say here that Eve’s being deceived is a reason Paul forbids women to teach and have authority over men?



Jeri, in re-reading you here, I see I did not directly answer this. I believe the answer is “Yes” to your question here in light of the totality of the quoted portions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> Is being deceived not a lack of correct reasoning ? I



The statement means that men haven't lost the ability to reason correctly, but women have. Think about that. A woman is not able to reason correctly. That is literally what that statement means.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> He is simply saying Eve , in her fall, lost the ability to reason= was deceived.



The problem is that she was deceived before the fall, so that doesn't work. And in any case, the Bible doesn't teach that women are incapable of reasoning correctly. Can't limit it to just Eve, since Paul's argument is not aimed at Eve, but certain women in that church.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The statement means that men haven't lost the ability to reason correctly, but women have. Think about that. A woman is not able to reason correctly. That is literally what that statement means.


Jacob your not reading the phrase right. In the sentence he is speaking about Eve and not “the female sex by nature”.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> Jacob your nor reading the phrase right. In the sentence he is speaking about Eve and not “the female sex by nature”.



That doesn't work, since this all goes back to Paul's using Eve as an argument that certain women in the church can't teach. If it is just about Eve, then it is pointless of Paul to appeal to Eve to silence these women.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that she was deceived before the fall, so that doesn't work. And in any case, the Bible doesn't teach that women are incapable of reasoning correctly. Can't limit it to just Eve, since Paul's argument is not aimed at Eve, but certain women in that church.


Okay, but my understanding is that when Sin tranpires in outward acts, those laws have already been violated in the heart.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That doesn't work, since this all goes back to Paul's using Eve as an argument that certain women in the church can't teach. If it is just about Eve, then it is pointless of Paul to appeal to Eve to silence these women.


I‘m trying to follow you. Why do you think Paul used “Eve was deceived” as one of the reasons for the prohibition for women to teach in the public gathered body?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 6, 2020)

G I don’t know if you had time to read the thread I linked to, but what I gleaned from the thread is the important point made there by Reverends Buchanan, Strange, and Winzer that Paul in 1 Timothy 2 speaks to Eve’s deception as a factor only as it relates to the order of creation. The Pastor’s statement that “one of the reasons women are not permitted to exercise authority over men in the public church gathering is that Eve was deceived,” doesn’t reflect that position. I believe the view espoused (and fleshed out most fully in the thread by Rev. Winzer) provides the best understanding to uphold the creation order as the foundation for male headship in the home and church and society.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> I‘m trying to follow you. Why do you think Paul used “Eve was deceived” as one of the reasons for the prohibition for women to teach in the public gathered body?



Why would Paul's argumetn work if the problem with Eve didn't extend to women, at least on this gloss?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> I‘m trying to follow you. Why do you think Paul used “Eve was deceived” as one of the reasons for the prohibition for women to teach in the public gathered body?


I did not like it initially, but I think I understand better now the position that says that Paul isn’t using “Eve was deceived” as a reason, per se.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are women naturally stupider and more gullible? Is that the inference we draw? No one wants to say that, but when you anchor it in "the nature of things," that's sort of what it sounds like.


To be fair this is not what the Pastor is saying. Further, no one, not even Perg is saying that women are somehow “stupider”. That is a misrepresentation of an opposing view that is a foundation-less assertion. Both sexes can be said to be stupid, we like sheep are all (male and female) prone to wonder away from our Holy Shepherd to all sorts of worthless things. Not worth speaking more with you on this, if this is the tactic. I am trying to rightly understand various views on this toipic. Though I do not have an issue saying ordinarily men and women tend to have unique propensities.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> G I don’t know if you had time to read the thread I linked to, but what I gleaned from the thread is the important point made there by Reverends Buchanan, Strange, and Winzer that Paul in 1 Timothy 2 speaks to Eve’s deception as a factor only as it relates to the order of creation. The Pastor’s statement that “one of the reasons women are not permitted to exercise authority over men in the public church gathering is that Eve was deceived,” doesn’t reflect that position. I believe the view espoused (and fleshed out most fully in the thread by Rev. Winzer) provides the best understanding to uphold the creation order as the foundation for male headship in the home and church and society.


I also enjoyed their positions. Pastor Thomas might could have worded some things better, but he also roots the issue with a usurping the authorities laid out by God in creation. Notice his discussion on how the punishments get dished out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Why would Paul's argumetn work if the problem with Eve didn't extend to women, at least on this gloss?


Jacob, I asked a genuine question to try and learn. I not playing the “question for a question” game.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> To be fair this is not what the Pastor is saying. Further, no one, not even Perg is saying that women are somehow “stupider”. That is a misrepresentation of an opposing view that is a foundation-less assertion.



I know nobody wants to say that. I'm simply pointing out the logical inference of the argument. It's not a foundation-less assertion.

1. Eve lost her ability to reason (which the Bible never says and is quite frankly bizarre, since humans reason by necessity every day).
2. There is a connection between women and Eve, otherwise Paul's argument doesn't make sense. 
3. Therefore, women can't reason.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know nobody wants to say that. I'm simply pointing out the logical inference of the argument. It's not a foundation-less assertion.
> 
> 1. Eve lost her ability to reason (which the Bible never says and is quite frankly bizarre, since humans reason by necessity every day).
> 2. There is a connection between women and Eve, otherwise Paul's argument doesn't make sense.
> 3. Therefore, women can't reason.


He seems to be saying that Eve (The actual person) was deceived by Satan. Further he brings in the authority structure of creation order by showing that Eve was not more prone to deception than Adam but because of her weaker or “lower” position (not being the head) Satan tempted her first. So my take away is that Women should not have authority over men in the gathered church because (rewording), Eve was deceived and thus is a reminder that Satan‘s strategy in the fall was to usurp headship from bottom to top. Therefore Paul reminds the church why this cannot happen in the Church because it was the very strategy used in the Fall.

Again not laying out my own position, but just what I took Pastor Thomas‘s position to be.


----------



## timfost (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> Is this not just re-stating the biblical fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not? Is being deceived not a lack of correct reasoning ? In full sermon context he also highlights Adam’s failures as well.



Grant,

We're speaking past each other a little. You are correct, it is a biblical fact that Eve was deceived. The portion of the sermon you cite, however, goes beyond this and said "*she alone lost the ability to reason correctly*." This is not a biblical fact. He makes an assertion about a change in her nature in contrast to the nature of man. 



G said:


> Prior to this section (4th time now), the Pastor states this:
> *”The Bible does not say that a woman is more prone to deception than a man. It is not that women are more gullible than men, and so for that reason cannot be teachers.”*



The portion you quoted does affirm that women are not more gullible than men, while at the same time affirming that women are not as able to reason as men. I hear you, Grant. But try not to discard the information from the first post you made. He argued that another reason women can't be in positions of authority in church or home is that she cannot, as a woman, "reason correctly." The portion you've quoted a handful of times now doesn't make these former assertions go away. 

Does that help clarify why so many people are reacting to what you shared?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

timfost said:


> Grant,
> 
> We're speaking past each other a little. You are correct, it is a biblical fact that Eve was deceived. The portion of the sermon you cite, however, goes beyond this and said "*she alone lost the ability to reason correctly*." This is not a biblical fact. He makes an assertion about a change in her nature in contrast to the nature of man.
> 
> ...


Yes I can see and understand your concern.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> . So my take away is that Women should not have authority over men in the gathered church because (rewording), Eve was deceived and thus is a reminder that Satan‘s strategy in the fall was to usurp headship from bottom to top. Therefore Paul reminds the church why this cannot happen in the Church because it was the very strategy used in the Fall.



If that's true then why bring in the bizarre claim that Eve lost the ability to reason? What makes that dangerous is the link (which all admit) between Eve and women today. If Eve lost the ability to reason, then so have women today, otherwise Paul was mistaken in this analogy.

I know the pastor isn't saying that (because it is so awful), but that's exactly where his position leads.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If that's true then why bring in the bizarre claim that Eve lost the ability to reason? What makes that dangerous is the link (which all admit) between Eve and women today. If Eve lost the ability to reason, then so have women today, otherwise Paul was mistaken in this analogy.
> 
> I know the pastor isn't saying that (because it is so awful), but that's exactly where his position leads.


I think it could have been worded better. I want to assume the man is not contradicting himself. Would you have issue if the phrase “she alone lost the ability to reason” instead read ‘she alone was deceived”?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> Would you have issue if the phrase “she alone lost the ability to reason” instead read ‘she alone was deceived”?



Yes, for several reasons. 
1) If Eve lost the ability to reason, then Eve for the rest of her life would have believed that A = ~A.
2) The text never says that.

The only way the quote can be salvaged (hypothetically, since it isn't biblical), is to rephrase it:

1* Even temporarily lost the ability to reason. That might work. It is similar to how humans' pre-frontal cortex shuts down during sex.

The statement is still wrong biblically, but at least it isn't quite as bizarre.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes, for several reasons.
> 1) If Eve lost the ability to reason, then Eve for the rest of her life would have believed that A = ~A.
> 2) The text never says that.
> 
> ...


But Jacob, does Paul not say that Eve alone was deceived in the fall and Adam was not? So I,m not sure why you would have issue with this:

My words:

“Her husband also fell, yes, but she alone_* was deceived*_. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that this is another reason why women may not teach and have authority over men.“


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 6, 2020)

I am thinking “lost the ability to reason” actually doesn’t seem equivalent, or come across as equivalent, to “was deceived”?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am thinking “lost the ability to reason” actually doesn’t seem equivalent, or come across as equivalent, to “was deceived”?


I agree, but when I came across it as a reader I took it that way because he already had qualified in the sermon that, in his own view, women are NOT by nature more easily deceived than men, nor by nature dumber.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> But Jacob, does Paul not say that Eve alone was deceived in the fall and Adam was not? So I,m not sure why you would have issue with this:
> 
> My words:
> 
> “Her husband also fell, yes, but she alone_* was deceived*_. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that this is another reason why women may not teach and have authority over men.“



That has nothing to do with losing the ability to reason. In fact, that completely refutes (or at least demonstrates the absurdity) in the pastor's claim. If there is an analogous connection between Eve and women today, which everyone admits, and if Eve lost the ability to reason, then the only logical conclusion is that women today, too, have lost the ability to reason.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> But Jacob, does Paul not say that Eve alone was deceived in the fall and Adam was not? So I,m not sure why you would have issue with this:
> 
> My words:
> 
> “Her husband also fell, yes, but she alone_* was deceived*_. So the apostle writing to Timothy is saying that this is another reason why women may not teach and have authority over men.“


Sorry Grant I know this is directed to Jacob, but I am inserting myself to say the sentence, “Eve’s being deceived was not a reason women may not teach and have authority over men.”
That’s the position I believe of Rev. Winzer, Buchanan, and Strange. Is this correct Rev. Buchanan? If you are still reading.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Sorry Grant I know this is directed to Jacob, but I am inserting myself to say the sentence, “Eve’s being deceived was not a reason women may not teach and have authority over men.”
> That’s the position I believe of Rev. Winzer, Buchanan, and Strange. Is this correct Rev. Buchanan? If you are still reading.


I would disagree Jeri, because that seems to not only be a plain reading of what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, but it has support from many reformed commentators.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Jul 6, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Still waiting for the argument, that explains how the deception of Eve (by the serpent) is a statement about, or even is a statement in Genesis taken by Paul to mean, the (relative) _gullibility of women_, that they are the more gullible or less reasonable sex_._
> 
> Eve did fall into deception, but there's no reason to infer from Gen.3 that her stumble is reflective of some "natural fact" that affects all her daughters in the same way. I certainly don't think Paul draws that inference from Gen.3 in his (1Tim.2) context either to illustrate or justify his contention.
> 
> There's a pesky middle premise that some preachers and exegetes just won't grant, assuming that the argument is even thought that carefully through. I'm not going to accept as "given" any such premise that is not Scriptural. And I'm certainly not going accept one that is "natural theology." I'm quite sure Paul makes no such appeal.



Excellent!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Jul 6, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> I'm not really sure how far we can apply that representative/intercessory principle, lynnie. And I mean that: I'd be interested to hear if someone has worked through this more thoroughly.
> 
> In each example you cite, we have a case of someone with God-given leadership or intercessory role--a prophet in each case, if not a priest--representing his people in their sins.
> 
> Do I really have the place or the right to represent and intercede for, say, CJ Mahaney? A (former) officer in a denomination utterly disconnected from me? As a Christian husband and father, I feel like I can represent and intercede for my family, and my church, if I were still a church officer. Beyond that, I would be hesitant to take that role. I don't see any example in the Bible--correct me if I'm wrong here--of a lay-person taking it on themselves to represent or intercede for their leaders without being given that role.



Hi- don't want to drift where the thread went, but to answer your question, I don't know. I have been encouraged by teaching in the past to this effect but I can't make out a theological case for your question at the moment. I have done it often, just from the vantage point that I probably have some or all of the same root sins that lead to scandalous actions in some people. I actually find it hard to interceed like this for people with perversions only because I don't feel like I am twisted in that unnatural way, but I admit that if I had been terribly molested when young I very well could have ended up just as perverted. But its no problem just praying for people the way you do, and asking the Lord to bring them to repentance. 

The main point I was trying to make is that when women in the church seem like "feminists", at the very least spend part of your prayer in praying for the sort of men that provoke such sinful reactions. They are all over : ). I listen to women about their problem husbands, and I always have to direct them back to themselves.........invariably it is a great big stew with plenty of female ingredients in the mix. I tend to think it is wiser for older women to be doing the exhorting about submission to women, and for men to be doing the exhorting about how men should be to men. It may be that the biggest problem with Aimee is not her opinions about where men need to change, but that she is trying so hard to get them to change. Maybe that is better left to men, and she should be more focused on where women need to repent. Thinking it all through right now. Thanks for the reply.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

lynnie said:


> It may be that the biggest problem with Aimee is not her opinions about where men need to change, but that she is trying so hard to get them to change. Maybe that is better left to men, and she should be more focused on where women need to repent. Thinking it all through right now. Thanks for the reply.


I smell what you stepping in here Lynnie, you may be on to something as I am dwelling on all this as well.


----------



## User20004000 (Jul 6, 2020)

Perhaps there’s a middle ground to all this. 

1. We may not infer that all women are easier targets to deceive then all men.

2. Nor may we infer that a reason that women may not rule in the church is _because_ they are more likely on average to be deceived by men. After all, if we grant #1 above, then obviously from a purely statistical basis there can be settings or situations in which even all women are more difficult to deceive than all men.

But perhaps more to the point, pastors are to be assessed for their discernment. Therefore, we aren’t ever to give a pass on vulnerability to deception merely on the basis of male gender. So, if we read too much in 1 Timothy 2:14, we could end up ignoring that fact that certain men don’t qualify due to a weakness in this area. We mustn’t assess vulnerability purely on gender, as if the apostle was prescribing a binary litmus test to determine the ease of deception.

3. That said, I think we may safely draw some complementarian inference from the text. There is a binary litmus test, a necessary but not sufficient condition for church officers. Officers must be male.

Although we mustn’t infer that women are disqualified from the office of pastor due to a propensity to vulnerability in this area, I can’t dismiss that the apostle seems to pointing us to some _corroborating_ general rule that supports the distinctly male qualification. In other words, a pastor must be male because of creation order. That creation order works its way out in general principles (yet not without exceptions).


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> I‘m trying to follow you. Why do you think Paul used “Eve was deceived” as one of the reasons for the prohibition for women to teach in the public gathered body?


I wonder if part of the order of creation model is the direct link between God and Adam. God created Adam and the command was to him. Eve was formed from the rib of Adam by God obviously. So there is a design aspect to man's role, his authority and accountability and it has noting to do with intelligence and everything to do with God's mandated and designed order.


----------



## Kinghezy (Jul 6, 2020)

RWD said:


> Although we mustn’t infer that women are disqualified from the office of pastor due to a propensity to vulnerability in this area, I can’t dismiss that the apostle seems to pointing us to some _corroborating_ general rule that supports the distinctly male qualification. In other words, a pastor must be male because of creation order. That creation order works its way out in general principles (yet not without exceptions).



Could we maybe say that while woman's reasoning isn't marred more man's, we have some consequences of the fall that match the actions Adam and Eve took that lead to the fall? So, the inability to have an ordained office follows the pre-fall pattern but now there's the difficulty with that setup. And maybe that's what Paul is referring to, the *consequence* of Eve's actions not some *inherent nature.*


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> So, the inability to have an ordained office follows the pre-fall pattern but now there's the difficulty with that setup. And maybe that's what Paul is referring to, the *consequence* of Eve's actions not some *inherent nature.*



Maybe, that's better than the original statement. The problem is that most of these patriarchalist types root this in a pre-fall situation.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> Could we maybe say that while woman's reasoning isn't marred more man's, we have some consequences of the fall that match the actions Adam and Eve took that lead to the fall? So, the inability to have an ordained office follows the pre-fall pattern but now there's the difficulty with that setup. And maybe that's what Paul is referring to, the *consequence* of Eve's actions not some *inherent nature.*


I do not think so. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul gives 2 reasons for the prohibition:

1. Pre-Fall Creation - Adam formed first.
2. Eve was deceived (Post Fall).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> I do not think so. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul gives 2 reasons for the prohibition:
> 
> 1. Pre-Fall Creation - Adam formed first.
> 2. Eve was deceived (Post Fall).



Agreed on reason for the prohibition, but what I am hearing in other posts, is that the passage isn't going so far as saying that she was deceived because of something inherent. Here's the passage with the *bolded&underlined* being what I think is assumed.

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived *because she is more gullible* and became a transgressor.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> Agreed on reason for the prohibition, but what I am hearing in other posts, is that the passage isn't going so far as saying that she was deceived because of something inherent. Here's the passage with the *bolded&underlined* being what I think is assumed.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:12-14
> 
> 12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived *because she is more gullible* and became a transgressor.


Yeah, I am not being so bold as to say that. Now I would be willing to say that due to Eve being deceived in the Fall that afterwords Eve’s (and women ordinarily and in general) fallen nature may ordinarily have a greater propensity to slide in this way than males ordinarily do. Just like I ordinarily fail in the lust of my eyes more than does my own wife. Males also certainly sin in being immmodest, but it would also seem that Paul felt to stress the topic of apparel more with the female sex.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> In 1 Timothy 2, Paul gives 2 reasons for the prohibition:
> 
> ...2. Eve was deceived (Post Fall).


Grant did you read Rev. Winzer’s arguments against this being a reason and were unconvinced?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Grant did you read Rev. Winzer’s arguments against this being a reason and were unconvinced?


Yes. I would tend understand and agree with the arguments by the majority of reformed commentators. Before I ever get to commentaries I try to take the plainest meaning of what Paul says. Pauls uses the same line of argumentation with Headcoverings. (Tying to creation)

Paul list 2 reasons Rather clearly. I will read Winzer again. But Paul’s clear pointedness his hard for me to get over.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 6, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Yeah, that Satan exploited the weaker vessel in this vital instance. He will continue to do so, and will use every tool at his disposal to reek havoc and sow discord including the utilization of social media to embolden sin and slander of the weaker vessel.
> 
> Adam complied so it is basically a moot point, but Satan will use whatever advantage is at his disposal. That’s what I think, I’m always open to correction.



Adam was led astray by Eve, not by the serpent. That's an important distinction. Eve was deceived by the enemy whereas Adam was deceived by his wife, his confidante, his friend. That makes Eve's deception of Adam especially grievous: she exploited her relationship with Adam to bring him, and with him Mankind, into ruin. Eve should have been suspicious of the serpent the moment it spoke to her: animals do not talk. We have no reason to believe it was normal for them ever to talk. She knew God's command and she knew that serpents do not normally talk. But still she allowed herself to be deceived.

It should also be remembered - in relation to the "modern educated woman" argument - that Adam and Eve were holy and righteous, without sin, before the Fall. Not one person since (save Christ) has been in such an advantageous position. Education is nothing to that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 6, 2020)

G said:


> Yes. I would tend understand and agree with the arguments by the majority of reformed commentators. Before I ever get to commentaries I try to take the plainest meaning of what Paul says. Pauls uses the same line of argumentation with Headcoverings. (Tying to creation)
> 
> Paul list 2 reasons Rather clearly. I will read Winzer again. But Paul’s clear pointedness his hard for me to get over.


It was hard for me to get over too but after re-reading the thread over the years it has made more sense. It’s indeed hard to go against so many wise commentators who hold to the other view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 6, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Adam was deceived by his wife


Alexander, should we say that Adam was deceived by Eve? 1 Timothy 2:14- “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Alexander, should we say that Adam was deceived by Eve? 1 Timothy 2:14- “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”



You're right: we shouldn't use that term to refer to Adam. Would seduced be a better term?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 7, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> You're right: we shouldn't use that term to refer to Adam. Would seduced be a better term?


I’m not sure what terminology commentators and reformers used, or how they described Adam’s compliance; I guess there would be a good place to start.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’m not sure what terminology commentators and reformers used, or how they described Adam’s compliance; I guess there would be a good place to start.



I was actually asking your opinion


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 7, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I was actually asking your opinion


Oh, ha! I don’t really have an opinion per se; I just checked Gill and he comports with what I’ve heard taught before: “He took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him...”

I’ve never studied the issue out and compared commentators, but this is maybe the majority view of at least the older ones?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Oh, ha! I don’t really have an opinion per se; I just checked Gill and he comports with what I’ve heard taught before: “He took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him...”
> 
> I’ve never studied the issue out and compared commentators, but this is maybe the majority view of at least the older ones?



That works for me

Reactions: Like 1


----------

