Should women speak in church?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
1 Corinthians 14:34-36:

[quote:ab4c389364]
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
[/quote:ab4c389364]

1 Timothy 2:11-15:

[quote:ab4c389364]
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
[/quote:ab4c389364]

[b:ab4c389364]Question:[/b:ab4c389364]
Are women permitted to speak in your churches?

If so, why, and on what Scriptural grounds? In what capacity?

FYI, for reference you might read this article by B.B. Warfield on the Puritan's Mind website:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/WarfieldBBWomenSpeaking.htm

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Jie-Huli]
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
The context of these passages deal specifically with speaking in tongues and preaching/teaching in a role of authority and instruction over men.

It does not forbid women singing, praying, or giving testimony.

All for now - time is short.....

Phillip

[Edited on 6-17-03 by pastorway]
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:1ab60b5e8b]
The context of these passages deal specifically with speaking in tongues and preaching/teaching in a role of authority and instruction over men.

It does not forbid women singing, praying, or giving testimony.
[/quote:1ab60b5e8b]

It is true that Paul's statements in 1 Cor. are in the context of a passage about speaking in tongues (something which, many would agree, waned after the apostolic age). Still, the principles set forth are eternal . . . just as Paul's statements about order in the church are applicable to all situations and all ages, not just tongues-speaking in the apostolic age.

It would seem to me that what he says about women speaking (in both the 1 Cor. passage and 1 Timothy passage) is stated quite broadly. It does not seem to say only that women should not take authority over a man . . . it affirmatively says that women should keep [i:1ab60b5e8b]silent[/i:1ab60b5e8b]; that they should not even ask questions in the public worship gathering, but ask their husbands at home. Even when looking at the verses in context, I do not see how the verse can be interpreted to mean only that women should not take positions of authority in the church, but that they can speak in other roles.

And the B.B. Warfield article on the Puritan's Mind website would seem to affirm that before modern times this was the understanding of the churches . . . that women should not speak in church gatherings at all. So is it just because our modern mindset cannot accept that interpretation that we are now interpreting it a different way? Are we becoming Biblical liberals by permitting women to speak (in the form of Scripture readings, testimonies, prayers, etc.)?
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
We are not being liberal. Women may speak, pray aloud, sing, and teach Sunday School. They are not permitted to teach in the sense of excercising authority over men in the congregation.

Notice the parallel:

[quote:47267ca39f]
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[/quote:47267ca39f]

Eve was deceived, Adam sinned willfully.
Adam chose to eat in his heart before Eve did with her action.
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
But, again, does not the text call women affirmatively to "silence" in the meetings? And would not this encompass all kinds of speaking, not just "exercising authority" in the congregation? On what basis do we limit the application of this broad language?

Did Christians before the 20th Century understand this passage the way you do? If not, why is it that we have changed our interpretation?
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
CONTEXT!

The context is preaching the Word of God authoratatively as an elder in the church.

Tongues were a sign to who? Unbelievers. Tongues were the proclamation of the gospel.

And Paul is talking about teaching that is authoratative, teaching of sound doctrine within the meeting of the church!

They should not question the teaching of the elders in public, but ask questions in private of her own husband. Otherwise she is challenging authority in the church and the home and being disruptive.

Women are expected [i:2354c276f1]in the church][/i:2354c276f1] to teach other women....do they do this with sign language?

See Titus 2:1-5.

The context is never one of making "vocal sounds"...it is one of authority in doctrinal teaching and preaching.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-17-03 by pastorway]
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
Pastorway,

I do understand very clearly what you are saying . . . that when taken in the context of the surrounding verses, Paul's statements on women speaking in church are meant only to prohibit women teaching in authoritative positions, not to prohibit them speaking in all contexts.

My question is whether this interpretation has only arisen in modern times.

Because the article by B.B. Warfield on the Puritan's Mind website (written more than a hundred years ago) makes the point emphatically that Paul's statements should rightly be understood to prohibit women speaking in any manner in the church, even prayer meetings. And from what I have read and heard from others, I believe that before the 20th Century this was the interpretation held to by almost all Biblical churches.

Apparently the Webmaster, Mr. McMahon, thought Mr. Warfield's article valuable enough to be worth posting on his website . . . so does anyone out there still agree with Mr. Warfield that women should not speak in church meetings at all?

Incidentally, I am aware of the verse in Titus 2:1-5, but I do not believe it in any way supports the idea of women speaking in church; this passage speaks of aged women teaching the younger women [i:994d1cad91]through their behavior[/i:994d1cad91] "to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." It is clearly talking about the older women being models of good behavior for the younger women through their lives, and says nothing about teaching anything in churches.

Blessings,
Jie Huli

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Jie-Huli]
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
Brother Jie-Huli:

The context in I Cor. is clearly prophesying aloud and unintelligibly.
Prophesying means to "speak before", ie. to utter God's word with authority before a congregation. Even men are to be silent if they are out of order and/or not coherent.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Singing hymns, and prayer is not the problem Paul is addressing here.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Visigoth]
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
Dear Visigoth,

I really am not trying to be contentious here, but looking at this passage in its complete context I do not see any grounds for concluding Paul's meaning is not every bit as broad as his language: commanding women to keep silent in the churches.

It is true that Paul speaks a great deal about speaking in tongues in this chapter; but that is not all he is talking about. His broader topic is order in the church meetings. So he speaks not only of speaking in tongues, but of prophesying, and of the sharing of psalms and doctrine in the meetings.

He does indeed say in 14:28 that if a man speaks in an unknown tongue and there is no interpreter that he should keep silent in the church.

But when he speaks of women, he does not say they should keep silent only if there is no interpreter for them; he says "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak." This prohibition is in no way limited to a certain context the way the prohibition on men speaking without an interpreter was.

At the point Paul makes the statement about women keeping silence, it seems evident in the context that he has finished speaking on the narrow topic of tongues speaking, and is talking about the general order of the church meetings.

Truly, looking at everything in context only persuades me more that his prohibition on women speaking in the churches is broad indeed.

Have you read that article on the Puritan's Mind webpage?

Still, it seems no one has answered me about whether any Biblical Christians a couple hundred years ago would have had any question that Paul prohibited women speaking in church completely.

I fear we moderns may be interpreting this passage in a limited manner because we have preconceived notions of what we wish it to say, rather than holding close to what it actually says.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Jie Huli,

I think that you have made an excellent point here. Far too often as modern Christians we simply assume that the text must mean what we think it to mean, contrary to historical evidence, because to do otherwise would make us uncomfortable. I agree with Warfield in his article, and that understanding is the classic Reformed (and frankly, unreformed) view of the Church until this century. you can see this from Calvin's [u:d768f8ec11]Men, Women and the Church[/u:d768f8ec11] and Knox's [u:d768f8ec11]First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women[/u:d768f8ec11].

At the same time, I do not think that what Paul is forbidding here (nor Warfield) is the corporate participation of women (or children) in the worship of God (i.e. singing). I think it refers to the specific speaking of women in the worship of the Church. For that reason, I would not have women publicly pray, read the Scriptures, preach or teach in a worship service. For a distinctly different reason, I believe that women should not teach men (and that includes teens) in Sunday school or Bible studies, per 1 Tim 2:12.

I hope that helps somewhat.
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
Our liturgy has a place for spontaneous congregational prayer. Women, men, and children are aloud to pray openly giving supplication, thanks, and adoration. But women do not get up in front and lead the church in prayer, nor do they teach men or adolescent men in Sunday School or any setting.

I think it is the height of inanity to believe the passage means women cannot utter anything. What about responsive reading ? ? ? What about singing hymns ? ? ? What about singing a solo during offertory ? ??

I think we can go way too far in our interpretations. I know you mentioned women can sing hymns but would not that be the next step if we take "speak" to mean any utterance using [i:1f41833157]reductio ad absurdam[/i:1f41833157]?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:5248e5118c][i:5248e5118c]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:5248e5118c]
Our liturgy has a place for spontaneous congregational prayer. Women, men, and children are aloud to pray openly giving supplication, thanks, and adoration. But women do not get up in front and lead the church in prayer, nor do they teach men or adolescent men in Sunday School or any setting.

I think it is the height of inanity to believe the passage means women cannot utter anything. What about responsive reading ? ? ? What about singing hymns ? ? ? What about singing a solo during offertory ? ??

I think we can go way too far in our interpretations. I know you mentioned women can sing hymns but would not that be the next step if we take "speak" to mean any utterance using [i:5248e5118c]reductio ad absurdam[/i:5248e5118c]? [/quote:5248e5118c]

Visigoth,

I do not intend to be drawn into a reductio ad absurdum. I instead will follow the Scriptures and lean upon the Church and historical theology (as opposed to modern feminist driven mores, albeit unconsciously) for assistance. The "speaking" refers exactly to that -- speaking. It does not mean that women are forbidden from singing, else the commands to "admonish each other with psalms, etc" would be irreconcilable. It refers to the leading/directing/teaching aspect of worship. For that reason, I would humbly posit that spontaneous prayer by any in the congregation is neither edifying nor Biblical. Corporate prayer is authoritative and teaching by its very nature. What do you do if the spontenous prayer prays for the dead? I have seen that happen.
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:f77ad541b6]
I think it is the height of inanity to believe the passage means women cannot utter anything. What about responsive reading ? ? ? What about singing hymns ? ? ? What about singing a solo during offertory ? ??
[/quote:f77ad541b6]

Just a thought (though I am not yet certain enough to state this conclusively): singing hymns and even joining in responsive readings do not involve a woman individually speaking, and do not put the congregation's attention on the woman's words; everyone in the congregation is singing or reading together. This may make these situations different.

Incidentally, I have no personal reason to want to interpret Paul's statements to require women to be in complete silence; in fact, just the opposite . . . it would be a lot easier for me in the future if I didn't interpret them that way.

But I do not want to find the interpretation most comfortable for me, I want to know what God has really told us in this Scripture, what His perfect will is for women's role in the church. God's idea on the subject is what matters, not my own, or any other man's. Paul's words in Verse 36 are apt: "What? came the word of God out from you?"

In Christ,
Jie Huli
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
[b:285c595717]fredtgreco wrote:[/b:285c595717]
It refers to the leading/directing/teaching aspect of worship.

In some of the churches I've visited recently, a woman leads the worship/song-singing portion of the worship service. God has given these women beautiful voices - is it scriptural for them to use their gift in this way?

Bob

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by blhowes]

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by blhowes]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
No. It is not a matter of ability, but Biblical warrant. In the same way, we would not argue that a woman that is gifted with more intelligence than her husband ought to be the head of that household, nor would we argue that a woman with exceptional speaking ability ought to preach.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
[b:8612c55d29]Fred wrote:[/b:8612c55d29]
No. It is not a matter of ability, but Biblical warrant.

That was my gut feeling when I attended the churches, but I've been trying to justify the gut feeling scripturally. When the woman is up there leading the singing, would you say that she's usurping authority over a man? If so, how?

Bob
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:14da15db88][i:14da15db88]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:14da15db88]
[b:14da15db88]Fred wrote:[/b:14da15db88]
No. It is not a matter of ability, but Biblical warrant.

That was my gut feeling when I attended the churches, but I've been trying to justify the gut feeling scripturally. When the woman is up there leading the singing, would you say that she's usurping authority over a man? If so, how?

Bob [/quote:14da15db88]

Bob,

I think it is impossible to get around the idea of leading any aspect of a worship service without the idea of authority. Worship is commanded; so as a congregant I [b:14da15db88]must[/b:14da15db88] participate. I need to do so following the lead of the leader in order for it to be corporate. Therefore, it is inevitable that the woman will have authority over me in that situation.
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
Fred:

With the highest respect and sincerety I have to say I find the Regulative Principle nearly impossible to implement or follow consistently or completely.

What about dance ? ? That is certainly within the bounds of thr RP but I have yet to see any Church pull it off tastefully.

And, wouldn't the Church calendar fall under the RP as well, since Israel followed a calendar of feasts and fasts and so forth ? ? ?

And as far as spontaneous prayer goes, I think that every believer anywhere can lift up holy hands to god in prayer in the context of corporate worship. That is why we have a set place for it in the liturgy. The liturgy maintains order. And the fear that someone might commit necromancy is not a reason to deny each member their participation in the worship.

Again, please do not take this as abrasive or argumentative for arguments sake. I am trying to learn. I have only been reformed for 3 years.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:547b85f3fa][i:547b85f3fa]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:547b85f3fa]
Fred:

With the highest respect and sincerety I have to say I find the Regulative Principle nearly impossible to implement or follow consistently or completely.

What about dance ? ? That is certainly within the bounds of thr RP but I have yet to see any Church pull it off tastefully.

And, wouldn't the Church calendar fall under the RP as well, since Israel followed a calendar of feasts and fasts and so forth ? ? ?

And as far as spontaneous prayer goes, I think that every believer anywhere can lift up holy hands to god in prayer in the context of corporate worship. That is why we have a set place for it in the liturgy. The liturgy maintains order. And the fear that someone might commit necromancy is not a reason to deny each member their participation in the worship.

Again, please do not take this as abrasive or argumentative for arguments sake. I am trying to learn. I have only been reformed for 3 years. [/quote:547b85f3fa]

Visigoth,

First, no abrasiveness is taken. I understand the questions.

Second, with all due respect, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to be reformed without adhering to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Calvin, for example, called the issue of the worship of God more significant than that of justification. Until basically the 19th century, every Protestant Christian communion outside of Anglicanism (baptist, independent, presbyterian, continental reformed, even Methodist) espoused the RPW. In fact it was THIS issue that caused the great Puritan conflict in post-Elizabethan England, and it was THIS issue that caused the Pilgrims to flee England, first for Holland, and then for America.

With respect to your statement about the impossiblility of implementing the RPW, I would respectfully ask you to consider what you mean. I would posit that you really mean [i:547b85f3fa]it is impossible to implement the RPW in a way that satisfies my personal tastes as to worship[/i:547b85f3fa]. This comes out in your comment about dance. Why would dance be a part of worship? Because you or I think it is or isn't? What about tiddleywinks? or what about mime? or what about square dancing? How can we tell which of these is a proper element of worship or not? What standard do we use?

Remember that corporate worship is commanded and required. If my local assembly calls a worship service, I am bound by my membership vow ( "to support the worship and work of the church" ) to attend. I have no option. And yet to worship falsely violates my conscience. Therefore the only way that we can determine what is proper worship is what God has so determined. The only way that we can know what God desires and has determined is by seeking His will. And the revelation of His will is found only in His Word. That is why every reformed confession (Westminster, LBCF, Three Forms of Unity, 2nd Helvetic, etc) all adhere to the RPW.

In all reality, the RPW is actually the easiest of all worship to implement. IT is simple. It is not complex. It does not contain offensive elements to any (who is against the Word, singing and praying?) It is when we begin to innovate, to think that [u:547b85f3fa]we[/u:547b85f3fa] know better than God what [u:547b85f3fa]He[/u:547b85f3fa] wants that we get in trouble.

As for spontaneous corporate prayer, I can't say anything other than the historical worship of the Church never included it, and it is rife with errors and potential errors. Personal prayer is just that, private. Corporate prayer in worship is for confessing sins, petitioning God for His mercy on His people and adoring God. It is not for each one to give their personal thanks and petitions. that is not wrong [i:547b85f3fa]per se[/i:547b85f3fa] but it is out of place. The closet prayers are for the closet, not the meeting room, in the same way that intimacy between a man and his wife is not for the meeting room, and yet it is good and proper in its place.
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
We do have a place for silent confession as well. The spontaneous element allows for the congregation to voice their thanks to God in the particulars. The written prayers of the prayer book or the petitions and thank of the Psalms are good but often very general. Each congregation has specific needs and points of gratitude to God.

I suppose most churches might handle what we do differently in that one person may gather requests and praises, and then delegate those to an elder or pastor to pray through them. I think that is acceptable but it sets up an old covenant picture in my mind of one man interceding for the people. The veil is torn indeed, so why revert back to the old typeology ? ? The priesthood of all believers seems to me to be missing in most corporate worship settings.

Any good books you can recommend ? ? ?
I would like to understand the RPW better. I will look at Calvin again . . .was that in the Institutes ? ?

The dance reference was to David, dancing before YHWH. It wasn't intended to imply I want dancing in the worship service.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Visigoth,

A good place to start is some articles on The Blue Banner web site: http://www.fpcr.org Go to the Blue Banner section and click on reformed worship. You can also find some excellent articles (with a exclusive psalmody twist) on: http://www.reformed.com/pub/sola.htm

and also see: http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/pubindextopic.html

The next best thing is to get commentaries on the WCF (Williamson, Shaw, or even Waldron on 1689). Then you could look at Jeremiah Burrough's book [u:7f83c19d8a]Gospel Worship[/u:7f83c19d8a]. The pertinent sections of [u:7f83c19d8a]The Institutes[/u:7f83c19d8a] should be laid out on the Blue Banner site, and yes that was the Calvin I was referring to, although there are pertinent sections in his commentaries as well.
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
context of church?

I'm assuming the teaching aspect in regards to women is in the official church service, or, should we not learn from them in written form, in a casual conversation at work, in the halls after church, in a sunday school setting where they are not teaching but elaborating or even correcting some scriptural point.
I have seen some biblically informed women give some great comments and scriputral references in sunday school, but I have def. seen the effect of allowing them to teach...boy do they love the power. I have attended churches where they are allowed to teach sunday school to mixed groups and it's amazing the "masculine" attributes they take on and the reveling in the power they seem to thrive on. Obviously limited to a few observations, but it has been a common theme.
Like all biblical teaching, it seems to me you don't have to look far to see the practical ramifications of not following God's word, go astray from truth and the results will quickly lead to unproductive and destructive behavior. Whether it be the works based Arminianism which quickly leads to legalistic congregations, working hard to keep the salvation they helped to gain, or the error of pre trib and its ramification on living a fearful life with a headline reading, doomsday perspective or the slippery slope of women teaching and the immediate imbalance of authority that follows--It almost always seems the husband of the teaching wife is a meak fearful man).
It seems to me--refering back to another thread--not only do we have the Word itself, God the Holy Spirit, The Great Teachers of the past, but also the real world ramifications of any one doctrine that guide us to finding if it is true or not--what are the results of the doctrine? Synergism inevitably leads to a works based life, Monergism leads to Praise. Sex inside confines of marriage leads to joy filled life and a healthy marriage, outside to disease and death. Homosexuality has it's obviouse deadly ramifications. Women teaching, pre trib, dispensationalism, not learning from the fathers in the church, infant baptism--(Who's in charge again--God or Believer) the list goes on.
Trev
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Welcome to the Forum Trev....

[quote:0ae775a8cb]Women teaching, pre trib, dispensationalism, not learning from the fathers in the church, infant baptism--(Who's in charge again--God or Believer) the list goes on. [/quote:0ae775a8cb]

I would be careful about lumping all these things in the same camp!
:shocked2:

The Bible is clear that women can be used to instruct men, even in matters of the faith!

[b:0ae775a8cb]Acts 18[/b:0ae775a8cb]
24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila [i:0ae775a8cb]and Priscilla[/i:0ae775a8cb] heard him, [i:0ae775a8cb]they[/i:0ae775a8cb] took him aside and [i:0ae775a8cb]explained to him the way of God more accurately[/i:0ae775a8cb].


But the context of the verses in question on this thread are obviously talking about women taking a position of teaching authority over men in the meeting of the church. Teachers [i:0ae775a8cb]in the church[/i:0ae775a8cb] are to be men. Women can teach women in the church. But the primary teaching in the church is preaching and this is a position reserved by God for men in the congregation.
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
What point leave...

Thanks for the welcome.
I think I'll use the warning of lumping them all together to ask you a question. Others can give me their opinion as well if they wish. The list I gave as to problematic doctrine was obviously based on [u:f4db8537e9]my[/u:f4db8537e9] assumption that they are wrong. I alternate between reading these posts and the articles on sites--Puritan Mind and others--as well as commentaries and of course the Word. I def. submit to teachers who have spent far more time studying the Word than I have, I compare it to scripture and go with a loose decision untill I've researched enough to "make a stand" regarding a certain issue. But in my short seven years of being a christian--and being raised in evangelical churches--I still continue to find so much out there that I had no clue about -- and even on this site people change views after years of "making a stand." My early church hero's like John Macarther make changes in core issues--4 to 5 points so I hear--So outside of the core essential doctrines of faith, I don't "make a stand" on much. Before hearing the white horse inn, I had no clue of end time views outside the big Pre, mid, post trib debate, and I find most evangelicals don't either. Ask them about Post Mill or Amill or God forbid Preterist and they don't even know what these things mean. Including many Pastors. From the list of doctrines I listed as error, I've found all of them taught with a very dogmatic zeal--including women teaching because of the context issue and def. the Pre Mill vs Amill because of it's ramifications for other aspects to Christian life.
Even on this sight which attempts to remove non reformed posters to keep the debate within the realm--shows the many differences in opinion on the teaching of scripture. So...my question.
Since it seems as you say, I should not list them all in one camp of problematic doctine--which ones should I list, which ones should keep me from attending a church? The church I attend now is great. People love God, strive to serve one another and reach out to the world. The pastor preaches Christ crucified and predestination, and the strong soveriegnty of God, but he would not hold to all of the "Reformed" traditions regarding church. He recently took over the church, and I've seen women teach mixed bible study in sunday school. Pastor doesn't agree but is not ready to drop the sword yet. Worship is contemporary and the Lord's supper is presented with great respect and sobriety but the sacremental elements are not emphasized as I've seen in reformed churches. [u:f4db8537e9]The Word is preached.[/u:f4db8537e9].
Most the church is Pre mill, Pre trib, and quite of bit of mixed up Arminian/Calvin mishmash theology abounds--but some of us Reformed types roam about but most like myself are still figuring it out and are not ready to leave a "good" church when we know that no church is perfect. It is def. a baptist church if not by name--believers baptism for sure and I don't know where they stand on the covenant issues--probably the congregation dispensational and the pastor closer to Covenant. It is tied to E.V. free, but used to be independent and E.V. free has a loose doctrinal stance allowing for wide range of beliefs.
So based on the differences of opinions and doctrinal beliefs on this website,
who says I stay and who says I go? And what doctrine is the straw if I go?
And if I go, anyone know a good reformed or reformed baptist church in the area of Pasadena Ca. ?
Trev
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
I would say that we need to be careful when we do say things are error. Some erroneous doctrines are more grievous than others. For instance, women serving as teachers or even pastors in the church is a clear violation of the Word. However, the truth about eschatology is that there are a multitude of views out there that claim to be able to back up what they believe with Scripture.

I will say that I would not attend a church with women teachers as this distorts God's plan for the church. But on the other hand, I do not think eschatology is a point to break fellowship over. You may not want to attend MacArthur's church if you are not dispensational in your eschatology, even though most of the doctrine in his church is right on Biblically. I would not have a problem at all fellowshipping with Grace Community Church. I would have a problem going to any church with a woman pastor - I would not even visit.

The key is that as we identify error, we need to be careful how we talk about it to others. Especially because we are all still growing spiritually and none of us has arrived at the knowledge of all truth!

Phillip
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
I've heard it said that there won't be any women in heaven. The argument was based on Revelation 8:1. The logic of the argument is difficult to refute.

:lol:

(sorry, couldn't resist),
Bob

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by blhowes]
 

Ex Nihilo

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:34cb0fd498]I've heard it said that there won't be any women in heaven. The argument was based on Revelation 8:1. The logic of the argument is difficult to refute.

:lol:

(sorry, couldn't resist),
Bob

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by blhowes][/quote:34cb0fd498]

I think what we have to keep in mind here is that John is speaking in the past tense. Clearly, the situation would be expected to change in the future. :rolleyes:

[quote:34cb0fd498]The Bible is clear that women can be used to instruct men, even in matters of the faith![/quote:34cb0fd498]

I like what you're saying here. It helps me figure out some issues. Clearly, women should by no means teach in an authoritative position in the church. However, that doesn't mean we should shrink from speaking about theological or spiritual matters (in an everyday context) [i:34cb0fd498]for fear[/i:34cb0fd498] we might (gasp!) teach a man something! The issue here is authority, not God's ability to use a woman to teach informally. Otherwise, I'd have to be afraid to bring up something I've learned from the Scriptures with a male friend, because if he didn't know it already, I would have inadvertently taught him! The problem would be my standing up and sharing what I learned in an [i:34cb0fd498]authoritative position[/i:34cb0fd498]... I know I, for one, would revel in the power of teaching a mixed Sunday School class in a very unChristlike way.

PuritanBoard would also need to ban all women to make sure that none of them posted anything enlightening.

[quote:34cb0fd498]No. It is not a matter of ability, but Biblical warrant. In the same way, we would not argue that a woman that is gifted with more intelligence than her husband ought to be the head of that household, nor would we argue that a woman with exceptional speaking ability ought to preach.[/quote:34cb0fd498]

I just wanted to voice my complete agreement on this point. This is the typical example that people seem to bring up to suggest that the Biblical roles are unfair. The fact is, women are and [i:34cb0fd498]have always been[/i:34cb0fd498] gifted with intellect and artistic talents, I don't believe any less so than men. Those who would use these kinds of arguments must think that the women in the churches Paul wrote to were stupid and untalented. They were (most likely) not. The basis of female submission and male leadership in the church is not greater measurable ability in the men, but God's decree. One might be able to see reasons for God's decree (as I think there are), but we don't have to understand to accept it completely and apply it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top