Women Learning & Under Authority

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grant

Puritan Board Graduate
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.:detective:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!
 
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?
:scratch:

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

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).
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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:

Again this is ordinary prescription in my mind, as I readily acknowledge extraordinary circumstances.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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."
 
"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.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top