End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esther

You are too hung up on women, the question was not in reference to women but whether you believe in Apostles and Prophets in today's time? Simple question really.

And answered in a simple fashion.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So your own consistency depends on other people? I think you're better than that.

Yea, what was I thinking by asking y'all to practice what you "preach" (pun intended) to others ?

*sigh* rdp, you and Pliny are complaining about insulting language, and yet you constantly speak condescendingly and rudely to others.

I see - but those "others" get a free-pass eh'? Where are all of your identical "warnings" to them? Still don't get the point do you ?

Yes, I understand that you are talking about context, but taken in context, the passage could apply to anyone in leadership--not just male elders/pastors.

This is completely false. The "context" specifically designates males in the roles of leadership - & never women. Here is the "context" - Please tell me how in the world a female can fulfill these requirements ?


"3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)"



Honestly, how in the world someone cannot see this crystal-clear context is mind-boggling - unless y'all will now say that women are free to be the head of the household & can somehow be the "husband of one wife" or (more accurately) "faithful to his wife" ?

Maybe she can address that when she comes back. I thought her husband pastored their church.

Yes, well, she did address it - & ummm, well, never mind - I will be a good lil' feller .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sasha

So it's 'do unto others as they do unto me'?

But wait, why are you referencing the Word of God - since we apparently cannot believe what it says ?

11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


Yep - Still there !

And I took you to be different than the average forum poster.

But I couldn't help noticing that you are comparing yourself to a bunch of women. LOL!

LOL - You totally miss the point - not surprisingly !

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yea, what was I thinking by asking y'all to practice what you "preach" (pun intended) to others ?

I see - but those "others" get a free-pass eh'? Where are all of your identical "warnings" to them? Still don't get the point do you ?

Practice what I preach? Please go find my insulting, offensive posts and report them. I do practice what I preach. The Admin posts were for everyone who contributes to this thread...not just you and Pliny.

[COLOR="Blue"]This is completely false. The "context" specifically designates males in the roles of leadership - & never women. Here is the "context" - Please tell me how in the world a female can fulfill these requirements ?


"3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)"

By "context", I assume you mean by looking at the bigger picture of the passage, which is addressing the qualifications for leadership. If you're going to be that specific, then please tell me how a single man can fulfill the requirements of this passage? By the way, IMO, a single man should NOT be a bishop/elder/deacon or pastor.

Honestly, how in the world someone cannot see this crystal-clear context is mind-boggling - unless y'all will now say that women are free to be the head of the household & can somehow be the "husband of one wife" or (more accurately) "faithful to his wife" ?

Obviously a woman can demonstrate fidelity and be faithful to her spouse, which would fulfill a more loosely interpreted application of the principle behind the mandate.

I think perhaps you guys are confused and think that I have a dog in this fight. I'm not an aspiring preacher, although I do teach a Sunday School class and I have taught self-help style community-outreach classes and I've taught Bible studies. However, doctrinal accuracy interests me, and so to that end, I like discussion.

Yes, well, she did address it - & ummm, well, never mind - I will be a good lil' feller .

Yes, she addressed it after my post. What are you going on about???

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Well, that's what I thought. rdp had me second guessing.

Hmmm, someone has an awfully lot of pastors ?!



One lady I know (very well) gave numerous pastors nothing but trouble - until she found one who let's her "preach" to men in the church - & Go figure, she thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread & hasn't given him an ounce of trouble !?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by rdp

But wait, why are you referencing the Word of God - since we apparently cannot believe what it says ?

11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


Yep - Still there !






LOL - You totally miss the point - not surprisingly !

I think it drives you crazy that I won't obey what you think the Bible says and stay quiet. LOL!

How about this? If you don't like talking to women, perhaps this forum isn't a good place for you. There are men's forums where women aren't allowed, you know.

[MissBrattified]

Oh, my WORD, rdp! Your insistence on doing posts YOUR way creates formatting nightmares for everyone else.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

In my experience, even ministers who opposed women as pastors would occasionally allow a woman to speak. My own father did that a few times.

My problem with this debate is that the "silence in the church" is usually only taken literally in reference to preaching, when in fact, Paul specifically mentioned teaching and nothing else. The same people who oppose women preaching are often fine with them singing, testifying, prophesying or teaching Sunday School classes. That's inconsistent.

If they are going to take the passage literally, it should be to ban women from teaching positions--but not from preaching, prophesying, evangelizing or prophesying. The "usurp authority" part is not a problem, because as long as you aren't acting on your own authority, you aren't out of line with that part of the scripture. It's the "silence" part of the passage that is problematic.

I have difficulty taking anyone seriously if they don't first apply their own interpretations and line of logic consistently.

The passage in question, like all passages, have context. The individual context - sentence context. Then thought context such as a paragraph. Then the whole context of scripture. This is known as the hermeneutical circle.

"The hermeneutic circle (German: hermeneutischer Zirkel) describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context."
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Hermeneutic_...=2801&qsrc=999


With that said the passage is literal. However, Paul made exceptions to this. He is simply preventing women from taking the initiative in speaking and allows for exceptions when there are genuine pneumatic endowment - Holy Ghost inspiration through the gifts of the Spirit. Not teaching nor preaching to men but as a proclamation of something outside the natural possibility of knowledge. This origin of "prophecy" is not through the will of man but through the Spirit alone which provides the pronunciation. Women are also told to teach other women and children. Thus the single verse in literal and in context with the whole Paul allowed exceptions.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Why can she pray, prophesy and praise in church if she is told to be silent, and why not preach, since Paul didn't forbid that? You guys are adding preaching to the mix, but the passage doesn't mention it. And, in your view, can women teach classes such as Sunday School classes?

The prohibition was in TEACHING and EXERCISING AUTHORITY over the man. Silence was used in conjunction with teaching in 1 Tim 2. Why? It is impossible to teach without exercising authority. You may have a problem with that, but most certainly the scripture does not.

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.

The silence was in the church, as already demonstrated silence was in regards to teaching. Notice this chapter, 1 Cor 14, is in regards to the abuse of tongues, and Paul demonstrates that it would be better to teach with 5 words than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue.

1Co 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

He also uses the word silence in regards to speaking in tongues, before he uses the term directed towards women. Let me demonstrate.

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.

Was this Paul saying that a man could not utter a word? No! As a matter of fact he follows this injunction of silence with let him speak. The injunction was if there was no interpreter for the man to keep silence, in regards to teaching or edifying or speaking to the church. However he could speak to himself and God. It is with this formula in mind we can also discern the proper application of silence directed toward the women. Is it absolute silence, as in not a sound? NO! She may pray, prophesy, praise, but the injunction of silence is in teaching, period. You cannot teach without exercising authority over the man when they are present.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

Hmmm, someone has an awfully lot of pastors ?!

One lady I know (very well) gave numerous pastors nothing but trouble - until she found one who let's her "preach" to men in the church - & Go figure, she thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread & hasn't given him an ounce of trouble !?

I understood what she said. Brother Alvear is her pastor, but technically they both are accountable to Bro. Williams. Makes sense. Are you being deliberately obtuse?