Is it OK to question church doctrine?

[Blik]

what "doctrine" would you be questioning ?
any doctrine that doesn't teach Jesus as the Son of God, and as the Saviour, is not worth the paper its printed on.
and, the pastor should check his/her credientials as well.

Yes, this the basic of Christianity, and all Christians believe in this doctrine. It is the baby food of being a Christian. What about speaking about living the Christian life? That is also doctrine, and it is going on to the meat of being a Christian.

 

[Blik]

This a typical "modern" approach to these verses of Scripture and a very dangerous one. Since Paul connected his statements to a "commandment of the Lord". Paul gives full explanation as to why women are to be silent during the assembly proceedings:

1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:

Scripture teaches both in Genesis and here that the the woman is more prone to being mislead. This doesn't go over well today. It was well excepted in most churches until the "woman's liberation movement" of the late 50's and 60s. Churches began to placate women and their position in the church because of what women saw as inequalities in society.

The law that Paul was referring to can be found in OT verses regarding the woman being in subjection to her husband and not having authority over men. You used the word "dominion", which is an old English word that is rarely used today. It is better understood by the word "authority". Men are to have authority over their wives because men are the head of the household, just as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the head of male believers. Male believers are the head of their believing wives and believing women in general. This is proper Biblical order, therefore, proper Godly order. 1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Now to the Old Testament and what Paul was undoubtedly thinking about when he said law:

Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. Being a help mate, is what is implied in the term "subjection".
Gen_3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. This authority over the woman was a judgement subsequent to the fall because eve was the first in the transgression.

Here are a few quotes from commentators of the past centuries and how they viewed this commandment "of women keeping silent", in the churches:

Albert Barnes (1798-1870)
Let your women keep silence ... - This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. “They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking” - Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers.
John Gill (1697-1771)
Let your women keep silence in the churches,.... This is a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy; in which he would be understood of men only, and not of women; and is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the apostle forbids and condemns, and not without reason:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue; there, we are told (b), the men came to teach, and the women לשמוע, "to hear"

If you compare these comments to modern commentators, then you will see the change creeping in.

You are forgetting to quote Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Also: Mark 10: 6-9: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female'. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, And the two shall become one flesh': so that they are no more two, but one flesh."

What one does to him/her self is done to the other.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Nothing that you have written here connects Jesus' death to your understanding of "saved". You haven't established why people who are eternally saved need a Saviour. I suspect you think it is perfectly clear, but I assure you, your explanation is missing the link.

Jesus sits at the right hand of God in heaven, and is a mediator for his elect, and they are instructed to direct their prayers through him to God. Jesus is also the king, the bride, and the high priest over his church, and we are his bride.

Jesus is also a deliverer (saviour) to the regenerated elect when they confess and repent of yielding themselves to the temptations of this world.

Jesus was a sacrifice offered to God, to pay for the sins of God's elect. His sacrifice was not offered to man, for man's acceptance, but to God for God's acceptance, and he said that there would be no more sacrifice for sins, therefore we do not need a Saviour to deliver us eternally, that is a done deal, but his regenerated children do need a Saviour to deliver them from the consequences of their sins that they commit as they sojourn here in this world. They are in this world, but not of this world. When his regenerated children commit a sin, it separates them, temporary, from their fellowship with God, because God does not fellowship with sin, until they repent But it does not separate them from their eternal inheritance.

Have you even considered that you might be missing the link, instead of me?

I am afraid that your mistake is, that you apply all of the salvation (deliverance) scriptures to an eternal deliverance.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Yes, I believe that women are allowed to speak in the assembly; three chapters earlier, Paul had women speaking (praying and prophesying) in the assembly. I take the portion from "Let the women" to "speak in the church" to be a quotation to which Paul then says, "What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth?" That makes far more sense to me, especially since I looked in vain for a commandment in the Law saying, "Let women be in subjection" or "Let women be silent".

I also believe they are allowed to preach, because I take Paul's instruction to Timothy in its cultural context, and about a woman (singular and therefore specific!). He is actually permitting females to undertake the same instruction that men take, in the same manner, and upon completion of adequate training, they would be released to teach and preach. As for "have dominion", nobody should be "having dominion" over anyone else in the church, and again there is a cultural explanation that makes perfect sense.

What I take exception to is people who take verses, divorce them from their context, don't study any further, and try to make broadly-impacting doctrinal assertions.

I would be interested to know if there were any scriptures that condone women to teach and preach in the new testament church, can you supply any? Timothy's mother and grandmother evidently taught him in his home as he was growing up, but not in the church.

 

[Dino246]

This a typical "modern" approach to these verses of Scripture and a very dangerous one. Since Paul connected his statements to a "commandment of the Lord". Paul gives full explanation as to why women are to be silent during the assembly proceedings:

Clearly, you did not consider what I wrote. Your assertion of "modern" is simply irrelevant, and your assertion of "very dangerous" is empty.

1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:

Scripture teaches both in Genesis and here that the the woman is more prone to being mislead.

No, it does not. It says that the woman (singular and specific) was beguiled. That says nothing at all about women in general, and it says nothing at all about any woman being "prone" to being mislead. It certainly says nothing about women in general being more prone to being mislead. Of course, that contradicts your ecclesiology, so you will likely reject it out of hand without reading the relevant verses more closely.

The law that Paul was referring to can be found in OT verses regarding the woman being in subjection to her husband and not having authority over men. You used the word "dominion", which is an old English word that is rarely used today. It is better understood by the word "authority".

The Greek word for "authority" is exousia. Paul knew that, as he used exousia in several other places. The word here is authentein which occurs in only this case in Scripture. Given the cultural context, "domineer" is probably the sense Paul meant; to exercise dominion in an improper manner.

Men are to have authority over their wives because men are the head of the household, just as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the head of male believers. Male believers are the head of their believing wives and believing women in general. This is proper Biblical order, therefore, proper Godly order. 1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

While this could be valid where a woman is married, it says nothing at all to unmarried women. Further, the alleged headship of husbands does not preclude married women from leadership roles in the church where they have the approval of their husbands.

Now to the Old Testament and what Paul was undoubtedly thinking about when he said law:

Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. Being a help mate, is what is implied in the term "subjection".
Gen_3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. This authority over the woman was a judgement subsequent to the fall because eve was the first in the transgression.

You have a strange understanding of "undoubtedly". The connection is tenuous at best, and I don't accept your assertion at all. God isn't commanding anything here; rather, He is stating what the unpleasant consequences of sin are for each party.

Here are a few quotes from commentators of the past centuries and how they viewed this commandment "of women keeping silent", in the churches:

Albert Barnes (1798-1870)
Let your women keep silence ... - This rule is positive, explicit, and universal....

John Gill (1697-1771)
Let your women keep silence in the churches,.... This is a restriction of...

If you compare these comments to modern commentators, then you will see the change creeping in.

Yes: a positive change, back to the equality of genders that Jesus intended for His followers. Nineteen centuries of oppression need to come to an end.

 

[awelight]

Clearly, you did not consider what I wrote. Your assertion of "modern" is simply irrelevant, and your assertion of "very dangerous" is empty.


No, it does not. It says that the woman (singular and specific) was beguiled. That says nothing at all about women in general, and it says nothing at all about any woman being "prone" to being mislead. It certainly says nothing about women in general being more prone to being mislead. Of course, that contradicts your ecclesiology, so you will likely reject it out of hand without reading the relevant verses more closely.


The Greek word for "authority" is exousia. Paul knew that, as he used exousia in several other places. The word here is authentein which occurs in only this case in Scripture. Given the cultural context, "domineer" is probably the sense Paul meant; to exercise dominion in an improper manner.


While this could be valid where a woman is married, it says nothing at all to unmarried women. Further, the alleged headship of husbands does not preclude married women from leadership roles in the church where they have the approval of their husbands.


You have a strange understanding of "undoubtedly". The connection is tenuous at best, and I don't accept your assertion at all. God isn't commanding anything here; rather, He is stating what the unpleasant consequences of sin are for each party.


Yes: a positive change, back to the equality of genders that Jesus intended for His followers. Nineteen centuries of oppression need to come to an end.

I am not going to argue the point with you or try to alter your way of looking at things. It is obvious your mind is made up. Unfortunately, your mind is made up by perceived social standards and humanistic logic, as your last statement clearly displays. You said: "Yes: a positive change, back to the equality of genders that Jesus intended for His followers. Nineteen centuries of oppression need to come to an end"

How sad that you think women in the true church have been oppressed for nineteen centuries and that being in subjection to ones husband is a form of oppression. I suppose you also think Paul had little regard for women?

 

[Blik]

I am not going to argue the point with you or try to alter your way of looking at things. It is obvious your mind is made up. Unfortunately, your mind is made up by perceived social standards and humanistic logic, as your last statement clearly displays. You said: "Yes: a positive change, back to the equality of genders that Jesus intended for His followers. Nineteen centuries of oppression need to come to an end"

How sad that you think women in the true church have been oppressed for nineteen centuries and that being in subjection to ones husband is a form of oppression. I suppose you also think Paul had little regard for women?

That God regards women equal with men is shown all through scripture. In the book of Judges, women stepped up to take the lead with the Lord's blessing when it was needed. The culture of the ancient world was not kind to women, but when God ruled a nation there was kindness to women. Paul allowed women to take a leading role in his work when it was good for his work.

When the world was operating in an ideal way, then the teamwork of a marriage was like the team work of a team of horses. One of the horses is always the leader, the other works side by side pulling its own weight under this leadership. Both roles are equally important. If needed, the help mate takes the lead.

 

[Butterflyyy]

It’s vital

 

[Butterflyyy]

We must test everything to see if it lines up with a proper (Hebraic) understanding of scripture.

 

[Dino246]

I am not going to argue the point with you or try to alter your way of looking at things. It is obvious your mind is made up. Unfortunately, your mind is made up by perceived social standards and humanistic logic, as your last statement clearly displays. You said: "Yes: a positive change, back to the equality of genders that Jesus intended for His followers. Nineteen centuries of oppression need to come to an end"

Goodness... you don't read too well! My mind is made up by the text, not "perceived social standards and humanistic logic".

How sad that you think women in the true church have been oppressed for nineteen centuries and that being in subjection to ones husband is a form of oppression. I suppose you also think Paul had little regard for women?

How sad that you think you know what I think. How sad that you didn't pay anywhere near close-enough attention to my post. How sad that instead of thinking through my reasoning, you dismiss it out of hand and throw accusations at me.

And yet, how typical of people with your mindset.

 

[Dino246]

Jesus sits at the right hand of God in heaven, and is a mediator for his elect, and they are instructed to direct their prayers through him to God. Jesus is also the king, the bride, and the high priest over his church, and we are his bride.

Jesus is also a deliverer (saviour) to the regenerated elect when they confess and repent of yielding themselves to the temptations of this world.

Jesus was a sacrifice offered to God, to pay for the sins of God's elect. His sacrifice was not offered to man, for man's acceptance, but to God for God's acceptance, and he said that there would be no more sacrifice for sins, therefore we do not need a Saviour to deliver us eternally, that is a done deal, but his regenerated children do need a Saviour to deliver them from the consequences of their sins that they commit as they sojourn here in this world. They are in this world, but not of this world. When his regenerated children commit a sin, it separates them, temporary, from their fellowship with God, because God does not fellowship with sin, until they repent But it does not separate them from their eternal inheritance.

Have you even considered that you might be missing the link, instead of me?

Yes. Considered, and rejected as incorrect.

I am afraid that your mistake is, that you apply all of the salvation (deliverance) scriptures to an eternal deliverance.

Your mistake is assuming a whole boatload of things at which I have not even hinted.

 

[Dino246]

I would be interested to know if there were any scriptures that condone women to teach and preach in the new testament church, can you supply any? Timothy's mother and grandmother evidently taught him in his home as he was growing up, but not in the church.

Since you take a forbidden-unless-specifically-permitted approach to interpreting scriptural instruction, rather than an permitted-unless-specifically-forbidden approach, you will be unable to see the matter as I do.

Perhaps I should start by showing how your approach is incorrect. See Acts 15 for that; the gentiles coming to Christ were given specific restrictions; everything else was permissible. Paul himself says "everything is permissible". If it's permissible, it's not forbidden.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Since you take a forbidden-unless-specifically-permitted approach to interpreting scriptural instruction, rather than an permitted-unless-specifically-forbidden approach, you will be unable to see the matter as I do.

Perhaps I should start by showing how your approach is incorrect. See Acts 15 for that; the gentiles coming to Christ were given specific restrictions; everything else was permissible. Paul himself says "everything is permissible". If it's permissible, it's not forbidden.

Every time that I ask you to back up your statements with some scriptural proof, you refuse to do so, which leaves me to believe that your statements are not based on the scriptures, but are your own personal assumptions

Your reference insertion of Acts 15, is a poor example of an excuse, and does not release you from the courtesy of supplying scriptures to back up your statements, which are not permissible.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Yes. Considered, and rejected as incorrect.


Your mistake is assuming a whole boatload of things at which I have not even hinted.

The only thing that I can do, is assume, when you do not base your statements on scripture.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Since you take a forbidden-unless-specifically-permitted approach to interpreting scriptural instruction, rather than an permitted-unless-specifically-forbidden approach, you will be unable to see the matter as I do.

Perhaps I should start by showing how your approach is incorrect. See Acts 15 for that; the gentiles coming to Christ were given specific restrictions; everything else was permissible. Paul himself says "everything is permissible". If it's permissible, it's not forbidden.

Perhaps you should start by giving some scriptures that will prove your statements are founded upon the scripture, instead of man made assumptions.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Goodness... you don't read too well! My mind is made up by the text, not "perceived social standards and humanistic logic".


How sad that you think you know what I think. How sad that you didn't pay anywhere near close-enough attention to my post. How sad that instead of thinking through my reasoning, you dismiss it out of hand and throw accusations at me.

And yet, how typical of people with your mindset.

Awelight is right. Do you see the common denominator here? I am not the only one that you give your assumptions to, without scriptural proofs.

 

[SoulWeaver]

That God regards women equal with men is shown all through scripture. In the book of Judges, women stepped up to take the lead with the Lord's blessing when it was needed. The culture of the ancient world was not kind to women, but when God ruled a nation there was kindness to women. Paul allowed women to take a leading role in his work when it was good for his work.

When the world was operating in an ideal way, then the teamwork of a marriage was like the team work of a team of horses. One of the horses is always the leader, the other works side by side pulling its own weight under this leadership. Both roles are equally important. If needed, the help mate takes the lead.

Agreed...
I just want to add that while indeed Eve was meant to help Adam in life, "helpmate" is a somewhat bad translation, it gives the impression of a second fiddle. This is not with intent to correct you, I simply wanted to leave this out there for native English speakers...
In my native language it was translated "a friend fit for him" so Eve was a matching friend to Adam, on his level. He couldn't have intelligent conversation with bugs. Same as our friends help us and are there for us, that's pretty much what friends do, but we don't call them helpers we consider them our equals.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Clearly, you did not consider what I wrote. Your assertion of "modern" is simply irrelevant, and your assertion of "very dangerous" is empty.


No, it does not. It says that the woman (singular and specific) was beguiled. That says nothing at all about women in general, and it says nothing at all about any woman being "prone" to being mislead. It certainly says nothing about women in general being more prone to being mislead. Of course, that contradicts your ecclesiology, so you will likely reject it out of hand without reading the relevant verses more closely.


The Greek word for "authority" is exousia. Paul knew that, as he used exousia in several other places. The word here is authentein which occurs in only this case in Scripture. Given the cultural context, "domineer" is probably the sense Paul meant; to exercise dominion in an improper manner.


While this could be valid where a woman is married, it says nothing at all to unmarried women. Further, the alleged headship of husbands does not preclude married women from leadership roles in the church where they have the approval of their husbands.


You have a strange understanding of "undoubtedly". The connection is tenuous at best, and I don't accept your assertion at all. God isn't commanding anything here; rather, He is stating what the unpleasant consequences of sin are for each party.


Yes: a positive change, back to the equality of genders that Jesus intended for His followers. Nineteen centuries of oppression need to come to an end.

So, if I understand you right, you are assuming that if God does not say specific not to do something, you can do it.

 

[Dino246]

Every time that I ask you to back up your statements with some scriptural proof, you refuse to do so, which leaves me to believe that your statements are not based on the scriptures, but are your own personal assumptions

Your reference insertion of Acts 15, is a poor example of an excuse, and does not release you from the courtesy of supplying scriptures to back up your statements, which are not permissible.

What? You can't read for yourself? Do you think I am obligated to quote Scripture verbatim in order to back up my statements?

Where is that requirement stated in Scripture?

 

[Dino246]

So, if I understand you right, you are assuming that if God does not say specific not to do something, you can do it.

Basically, and with consideration of what God does say, yes.