[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Sis. Alvear, it'd be great to have Scheels on here.
I haven't been satisfied with either argument at this point. For the non-women teaching/preaching crowd, they have to actively minimize the role of women leaders mentioned in Acts, Romans and other Epistles.

How about we just start over in congeniality so we can ascertain the truth on this matter? I'll consider anything anyone has to say on the matter, so long as it's from the Scriptures & not mere opinions. Whaddya' say?

Now, where are "women leaders mentioned" in the NT church? Phoebe was a "HELPER of many"...not a leader. Nympha is not at all clear whether this individual's name is masculine [CT] or feminine [MT], but regardless, said individual simply had a church meeting their house. How does this make one part of the 5-fold ministry? In sum, there's absolutely no biblical record of women in leadership, or in the 5-fold ministry, in the NT church. Aquilla & Prisca simply gave a home Bible study to Appollos, this is not the same context as a public assembly of believers. And even Deborah worked w/ a man! We should [myself included] be careful to simply allow the text to speak for itself, lest we be guilty of "eisegesis". Not accussing, just making a point.

They also lose sight of cultural changes and how that affects our presentation of the Gospel.

I would respectfully disagree w/ this, since I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14 surpass cultural changes. I Cor. was addressed "To all who call on the Name of the Lord Jesus, in every place." Surely God wasn't so near sighted that He didn't know the church would have to apply these verses in 2010?

For the pro-women teaching/pastoring crowd, they have not provided a strong defense of 1 Cor/1 Timothy combined IMO. Sam indicated 1 Cor 14 was Paul's repeating arguments from Corinth, in which Paul responds in objection (the proceding verses). Godsdrummer argues from 1 Timothy that this is with regard to relationship of husband and wife. RDP raises a good point: toward the end of the letter, Paul states his purpose, and indicates the issues concern public assembly. One can then ask what the problem was in the public assembly? Women of God teaching/preaching? Or was there a different problem? Could it still have been among husbands/wives. If only the early church video tapes their services!

Paul speaks in imperative moods [i.e., "do not allow"] in I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14:34 to the church. My point: If we relegate [not saying you are] his teachings here to the mere culture of his day, then why did he essentially say the same thing in both epistles? And, will we do the same thing w/ his teachings on faith, repentance, etc.?

To clarify, my earlier point regarding hermenutics was that it's an error to take verses that are not specifically addressing a given topic [I Cor. 11, Rom. 16, Acts 18, etc.] & use them to nullify passages that ARE specifically addressing the topic under consideration [I Tim. 2:11-15 & I Cor. 14:34]. This is an interpretive fallacy, that's all I'm saying.