Do You Believe In Women Preachers?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Here's a question. If it can be shown that Junia was a woman and deemed by Paul to be an apostle then I think the case of women preachers is closed.

Now, what if it can only be shown that it is highly likely that Junia was a woman that was deemed by Paul to be an apostle. Should someone take the very unlikely position that she was not a woman who was deemed by Paul to be an apostle just because it seems likely that 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy ban women preachers?

I don't have an answer... but this question is more a question about the proper process of biblical interpretation when we are dealing with ambiguous passages.

Junia is a 3rd declencion MASCULINE [not feminine] noun. BAGD says there's no way it can proved either way. Regardless, it says this person was "of note" among the apostles. The definite article is used indicating the 12 apostles. Soooooo, where was Junia in Acts 1????????????? This is all so silly! Why don't you just believe the Bible? "I do NOT allow a woman to teach.....".

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

This HAS GOT to be the silliest 'argument' I've ever heard in my life to attampt to invalidate I Tim. 2:11-15! Using your logic, NONE of the Bible is for us today....since we live as "Westerners in the 21st century"!?!? How in the world you can compare a greeting to God's order of headship is beyond me.

You simply refuse to accept I Tim. 2:11-15, so your best "argument" is to say, "Well, we don't greet each other w/ a holy kiss [& I've already told you that many do...for about the 5th time now!], so why should we take Paul seriously in I Tim. 2:11-15!" You can't be serious...this is much like the atheist argument that says that original life was planted here by aliens! This is what Ive been wasting my time w/??????????????????????????????

I'm not trying to invalidate 1 Tim 2. Are you able to hit the pause button a second. I'm trying to prove cultural limitation do, in fact, exist in the witness of scripture. That's it.

Instead of addressing this issue as a reality, not even granting us a "yes, but" -- rather, you are dodging the point, or making remarks that you think we should still be smooching each other.

Calm down and take a breath.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I wanted to add that there is a way of explaining any passage so that the passage can mean nearly anything a person wants.

Now you're preaching! Few simply allow the text to define itself.....such as I Cor. 14:34 & I Tim. 2:11-15!!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I have the books not only by him, by Piper and many others...so I know what they believe.

But you refuse to believe their grammatical break-down of the passages....because it's what you want to believe! I do mean this disrespectfully, but factually.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

It's not "legitimate" in the least & the fact that you defend it demonstrates that you need to study a bit further into hermeneutics. It IS an equivocation fallacy to compare the greeting principle w/ God's order of creation [not to mention the 'glory of man' instructing man!]...no matter how ya'll beller' that it's not.

Sorry Charlie...no comparison....& according to this view, then we should relegate the entire Bible to "culturally relevant"....will Y-O-U guys be "consistent" & apply the same criteria that you do to the "kiss" to entire Bible. I doubt it, so ya' might wanna' practice the ministry of the mirror before you talk to me about "consistency"!!

Can you rub your belly and talk at the same time? Good grief!

There is no fallacy! Quit making things up. You find me a hermeneutics professor, someone experienced with exegesis, etc that will claim men should greet each other with a kiss today. You are showing your subjectivity to the core -- not even able to validate this tiny argument because you think it leaves the other argument vulnerable. Let the argument about women as eldering pastors stand as it is, it doesn't mean you have to write ludicrous things like we should still be greeting each others with kisses because "that's what the Bible says."

Cultural relevance is a part of biblical interpretation. It amazes me when you spit on that with such disdain. I would apply the same criteria to the kiss as I do to the whole Bible. Shall I open a hermeneutics textbook and just copy/paste examples ad infinitude for you?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Now you're preaching! Few simply allow the text to define itself.....such as I Cor. 14:34 & I Tim. 2:11-15!!

No text in the bible defines itself. No biblical texts are islands unto themselves. They are all intertwined with the other texts and we must make sense of them as a whole.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Jfrog, to me.... just to me... I almost tend to disagree with one of my favorite scholars, Gordon Fee, on this one. The "source of life" argument, I feel, loses it. There may not be hierarchy in the home (in the form of subservience and inequality), but there seems to be order. Children, women, man then God. The man seems to biblically be the "priest of the home." We know from scripture that husbands and wife's were submitted to one another in love, but that the man took the lead. He was the "first among equals" -- a citation from antiquity. This tells me, when assembling together, this same social order (which is cited in creation) applies in that setting.

To that end, I don't have any problem with women teaching, preaching, prophesying. I would, in this view, have a problem with them functioning as an elder over the congregation.

But my view is not settled, and nor do I believe this is a Gospel issue.

Wayne Grudem, Douglas Moo, D. A. Carson, Thoman Schreiner, etc. all put out a 566 pg. book thoroughly refuting Gordon Fee's book based off of the grammar/exegesis of the texts in question. It thoroughly destroys the "women preacher" doctrine................all based upon exegesis & grammar!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

The fact that you gave jfrog a thumbsup here only shows how gullible you are. This thread is the reason that hardly ANY of my fellow preachers even come on this forum anymore. You guys go to no limits to justify your disobedience to the Bible.

For the 50th time now....The woman preacher issue is tied to the creation model of order & headship. Pls., pls. read S-L-O-W-L-Y here: "F-O-R Adam was FIRST formed, THEN Eve." For is a connective term tying the prededing thought to the present one. It is N-O-T tied to mere "cultural relevance". Good grief....is anyone at home in there????

You're attitude is a reason your church movement is dying a quick death. You can't have a discussion without rebuking everyone in a usual RDP temper tantrum.

Have you ready anything I've typed? You're just reactive...radioactive... I agree that your argument, connecting the social order of the family back to creation, is relevant to overcome cultural limitations to that chapter. It's definitely not quickly ruled out. Not sure where you're getting that from.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Falla39

How about a little humor!

Adam looked at Eve and said "now listen here, woman; I wear the plants in this family!.." --- King's Clown

I love it!!!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Wayne Grudem, Douglas Moo, D. A. Carson, Thoman Schreiner, etc. all put out a 566 pg. book thoroughly refuting Gordon Fee's book based off of the grammar/exegesis of the texts in question. It thoroughly destroys the "women preacher" doctrine................all based upon exegesis & grammar!

For those names in the bold alone, I'd actually be interested in reading the book. I've read Fee's work on this. What I admire about Fee's writing is that he isn't dogmatic about this.