MY Call? Shouldn't it be GOD'S Call?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:37:50 -0600 lyohnk@juno.com (Lynne A. Yohnk)
writes:

>>BOTTOM LINE:  Do those of you who believe in women preachers believe 
>>that you would have been allowed to Preach/Pastor in a mixed 
>>congregational setting in one of the Churches Paul started during the 
>>time when Paul was there?
>
>Yes.

Based on what, exactly?  Paul made a clear distinction between the
genders and there is no historical records that would make such claims,
so where do you get this from?

Thank you for answering, btw.

>>If that is what you believe, then I would say that you have an 
>>incorrect interpretation, since the Bible does not contradict 
>>itself.
>
>You didn't answer the question.

I did.  I said that your assumption (which was your original question) if
worded as you believed was inaccurate to start with since the Bible will
not contradict itself.

It would be like saying, Why did Jesus say that in Chapter four and then
say the exact opposite thing in Chapter five?  
If it appears that way, we are STARTING with an incorrect
assumption/interpretation, so there can be NO correct response.

Sort of like "Have you stopped beating your husband?"  The question has
to be fixed before you can get the answer you want.

>>Are you saying that you believe that this scripture is referring to 
>>women addressing a congregation of men?
>
>You didn't answer my question.

I have to know what your intention with the question is.  I am not going
to assume if there is a possibility that you are saying something
different.

>>Actually, it IS the same word: "an'-ayr", used as "men" in verse 4 
>and "man" in verse 12.
>
>In the Interlinear Bible it translates it as man.

In the original Greek, I'm sorry, but it is the exact same word.  Check
your Strong's.

>>That's easy: Do you honestly believe that it is only telling HUSBANDS 
>>to "life up holy hands everywhere"?

Can you tell that I don't spell check?  <G>

>>And only WIVES that they must dress modestly?
>
>No, because it says "men" and "women" in that part. 

As I said before, the original Greek makes no such distinction. The
original words are the same whether they were translated "men" or "man"
in that chapter, so the original made no such distinction as you are
claiming.

So since the original words are the same in both parts of the chapter
that we are referencing, at what point do you think it makes a contextual
change and based on what?  

>>I have not claimed that this is limited to "church functions".  
>>Matter of fact, I have indeed said that if a woman set up a website for
the 
>>purpose of ministering to both men and women, it would fall in the 
>>same prohibition...
>
>Which shows your extreme view on the subject.

Name calling doesn't help anything.

Besides, are you saying that as long as women are not at Church they can
violate the Word of God?

What if a man who had many wives setup a website designed to minister to
people?  I would equally say that was wrong...

>>Why does it talk about women adorning themselves in modest apparel?  
>
>>The same reason; God wanted it there.
>>Does it pertain DIRECTLY to the issue of women having spiritual 
>>authority over men?  
>
>You didn't answer my question.

Yes I did.  I clearly said, "God wanted it there".  Again, this verse
appeals more to my side of the argument, since it is clearly talking
about the "universal" woman, not just wives...

>>Actually, this verse puzzles me, even though it has nothing to do 
>>with the issue we are talking about.
>
>This is a bizarre statement, when the verse is right in 1 Tim.2. If it 
>puzzles you, how can you say it has nothing to do with what we are 
>discussing? You didn't answer this question either.

Yes I did.  I said that I didn't understand that verse.  But that is like
me asking you what 1 Timothy 1:7 has to do with this verse, because you
must remember, this was ONE LETTER to Timothy and originally it was not
separated into chapter or verse.  The chapter and verse segmentation was
man-made to assist in easier memorization and categorization.

>>Need I explain the difference between spiritual and political 
>>positions?
>
>Margaret Thatcher was a political figure.  When did she prophesy?

My point exactly.

>>My question is still unanswered; do you have an example of an Old 
>>Testament Priest that was a woman?
>
>No.

Thank you.

> Now answer me:  Who had more spiritual authority, Eli the priest 
>or Elijah the prophet?

Neither.  So now you are going to say that "Prophetesses" existed, so if
a prophetess (generic) equals a Priest, there needed to be no women
priests, but that is still incorrect, since God made a specific and
distinct separation of the sexes and their roles and the role of the man
was to lead, not the woman.

Do you agree with that?

That it is God's Will for man to lead, not woman?

>But Anna was *teaching* people that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, 
>which was a *new doctrine* BTW.

If she was witnessing as the lady at the well did, I have no problem with
that.  

>Deborah prophesied it was time to go to battle leading them to do it 
>and you're saying she had no spiritual authority?

Correct.  I'm not saying that God can't talk to women, but the rank and
order are there.  The chain of command is Jesus > Man > Woman.

And there was a clear difference between the genders in the Old Testament
as well.
Deborah, like ALL women, were not allowed to go far into the Temple.

IF God had intended for women to be spiritual leaders, why were women
prohibited from going into the Temple as far as men?  If women WERE
supposed to be spiritual leaders over men, then there would have been a
possibility that a woman might have become High Priest, but women were
not allowed that Spiritual rank.

Why not?

>Since tongues and interpretation is equal to prophecy, they are either 
>both wrong or both right.
>
>>Speaking of, do you really believe that John taught that women could 
>>teach, minister to or Pastor men?
>
>Certainly.

So John taught doctrines that were contradictory to Paul?  

And if you believe this, WHERE does it say that John taught that women
could teach, minister to or Pastor men?

Specifically, please.

>>My challenge remains unanswered: I have yet to see proof of ONE woman 
>>Priest in the Old Testament or ONE woman Preacher/Pastor in the New 
>>Testament.
>
>You have seen countless prophetesses.  Look up prophesying and 
>testifying.  They are not the same thing.  The woman who testified of 
>Jesus after He told her everything she ever did was not a prophetess.

She did what we today would call witnessing and I don't know of ANYONE on
this list who would discourage any woman, or any Christian, for that
matter, from witnessing.

>>If you could sum up what you think I believe in two or three 
>>lines, what would it be? 
>
> Jerry believes that women can prophesy in the Spirit, leading men to 
>battle but not have any spiritual authority.

While that is correct, it is only partially correct.  I believe that the
Bible doesn't contradict itself.  I also believe that we are to obey the
Bible, regardless of the political or cultural environment we are in. 
So, regardless whether the issue is women Preachers or bigamist male
Preachers, my answer is going to be the same.  

I believe (quite strongly) in 2 Timothy 3:16

"ALL scripture is given BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

When I was going through my rebellious/question everything stage, it was
THIS scripture that quietly and immediately rebutted the inner arguments
that my flesh was making that "oh I can have long hair; that was just a
cultural thing"...

>And He did not or could not answer 4 out of 12 questions. 

I could not answer two questions, one because I said that I simply didn't
know and the other, I need to know what your stand is before I can
intelligently respond, and I did answer the other two, as I hope to have
shown you in this post. 

And, no offense, but even if I only answered 8 out of 12 questions, that
is a FAR better batting average than I have been receiving.  

I do want to thank you very much for responding to my post.  It was very
kind of you.

Jerry Welch
ICQ: 18489712
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2810/

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]