"universal rights of the people"

[HappyChristian]

The personal applications here aside, these are the same arguments some use to say that women can instruct men in biblical matters anywhere outside the church in any capacity other than as a pastor. Most fundamentalist I'm familiar with vehemently argue against such. Many proclaim such isn't the proper, Christian thing for a Christian woman to be doing, whether in an informal setting or something more formal. One point that is sometimes brought up is that such would only be appropriate in a limited manner if it were a husband and wife, instructing together.

Ah, but it is usually those who have been shown to be wrong... I do believe that's called male ego.

[John81]

Ah, but it is usually those who have been shown to be wrong... I do believe that's called male ego.

I don't know what you are referring to, but I'm referring to fundamental pastors, and other conservative pastors as well, who base their view upon Scripture, not ego. I've not read of any biblical refutation presented to them nor of anything else that proved them wrong. If you have references to some of this, please post them here or a link as I'd be interested in reading them.

[HappyChristian]

What I mean is, this kind of post always appears when some men just don't want to have women point out their errors.

And I know only one fundamental pastor who teaches that the verses that deal with CHURCH order apply everywhere. :saint2:

[trc123]

I stand by my prior answer and observation to the question, "PS. Should a woman be giving bible instruction to men?"


Answer: Yes - If she agrees with the man's point of view; No - If she disagrees with the man's point of view.

P.S. That's pretty much how guy's who question if a woman can instruct a man look at it.......... :smilie_loco:4

[John81]

Why is it that when some men disagree with something concerning women it's automatically assumed there is a "male ego" problem; yet when women disagree with something concerning men we don't jumpt to the conclusion it's a "female ego" problem?

For myself, and most other serious Christian men I know, in this areas, as in others, it's about what Scripture says, not about ego, not about how it was in grandpappys day, not about personal preference.

As I've indicated before, I agree that many professing Christians have and do put other things ahead of Scripture in this area, and others. However, we shouldn't jump to conclusions in this matter (or any other) and accuse a brother/sister of being among those. As I also said before, I've noticed nothing in Invicta's postings to indicate his question was coming from ego. His question should be addressed as a serious question in a serious and respectful manner.

As to the fundamentalist pastors who hold that certain verses, which I think I know which was being referred to, pertain to within and without the church, I know of many who hold that they apply both within and without. There are some on this board who hold to that position too; or perhaps I should say they did in the past because they have posted such in the past.

That said, there are other verses which apply, and others which may apply.

Along with this we should also consider the verses dealing with our attitude, speech, and how these and our conduct are viewed both from within and without.

[HappyChristian]

Along with this we should also consider the verses dealing with our attitude, speech, and how these and our conduct are viewed both from within and without.

Oh, you are so right in this statement. So right...

I never said anything about Invicta and ego...and didn't even have him in mind, so please don't drag him into this. I realize he asked the question in this thread, but he's not the one who posts things like this as often as others. (and as to ego: did you not notice the smiley? That was an attempt at humor...and all the ego jokes are about men, not women...no need to take it personal....)

Yes, I know there are some that claim it pertains to within and without the church. But it cannot, for the simple fact that the Bible commands women to be in subjection to their OWN husbands. If a woman was never to do or say anything that a man considered usurping his authority in any area of life, then she would in effect be in subjection to any man who decides he has the Biblical authority to command her. And that just ain't so...from scripture. The scriptures dealing with usurping authority lie within the realm of church structure. And, as you've pointed out, it doesn't matter about personal preference as to what a person might think the verses mean, it doesn't matter how grandpappy did it, and it doesn't matter what the ego feels. :icon_mrgreen:

[no name joe]

Oh, you are so right in this statement. So right...

I never said anything about Invicta and ego...and didn't even have him in mind, so please don't drag him into this. I realize he asked the question in this thread, but he's not the one who posts things like this as often as others. (and as to ego: did you not notice the smiley? That was an attempt at humor...and all the ego jokes are about men, not women...no need to take it personal....)

Yes, I know there are some that claim it pertains to within and without the church. But it cannot, for the simple fact that the Bible commands women to be in subjection to their OWN husbands. If a woman was never to do or say anything that a man considered usurping his authority in any area of life, then she would in effect be in subjection to any man who decides he has the Biblical authority to command her. And that just ain't so...from scripture. The scriptures dealing with usurping authority lie within the realm of church structure. And, as you've pointed out, it doesn't matter about personal preference as to what a person might think the verses mean, it doesn't matter how grandpappy did it, and it doesn't matter what the ego feels.

Don't know if I want to jump back in on this thread, but since it has changed topics:


What if the pastor is wrong in something he says and no one will stand up and correct it except for a woman?

[Brother Rick]

:beatdeadhorse:

[Guest]

That dead horse looks more like a dead mule.

[John81]

Oh, you are so right in this statement. So right...

I never said anything about Invicta and ego...and didn't even have him in mind, so please don't drag him into this. I realize he asked the question in this thread, but he's not the one who posts things like this as often as others. (and as to ego: did you not notice the smiley? That was an attempt at humor...and all the ego jokes are about men, not women...no need to take it personal....)

Yes, I know there are some that claim it pertains to within and without the church. But it cannot, for the simple fact that the Bible commands women to be in subjection to their OWN husbands. If a woman was never to do or say anything that a man considered usurping his authority in any area of life, then she would in effect be in subjection to any man who decides he has the Biblical authority to command her. And that just ain't so...from scripture. The scriptures dealing with usurping authority lie within the realm of church structure. And, as you've pointed out, it doesn't matter about personal preference as to what a person might think the verses mean, it doesn't matter how grandpappy did it, and it doesn't matter what the ego feels.

I don't take any of the posts personal, if you noticed in what you quoted from me I said "we", as meaning myself, you, and all Christians, not anyone in particular and I didn't say that statement had anything to do with anyones post but left it straightforward as being related to the topic at hand.

I wasn't dragging Invicta into anything, it was his question that brought about certain responses.

What several fundamental pastors teach is that only when the woman is working in conjunction with her husband, clearly subject to her own husband, the two of them instructing together, is it acceptable for a woman to instruct men. They often refer to Priscilla and Aquilla (sp?) as examples of this.

[John81]

What if the pastor is wrong in something he says and no one will stand up and correct it except for a woman?

Then there are many more problems within that church and any true follower of Christ should seek out a proper church home.

[heartstrings]

I don't know what you are referring to, but I'm referring to fundamental pastors, and other conservative pastors as well, who base their view upon Scripture, not ego. I've not read of any biblical refutation presented to them nor of anything else that proved them wrong. If you have references to some of this, please post them here or a link as I'd be interested in reading them.

From a well known highly respected fundamental pastor
The "Curse of Canaan" on black people----twisting scripture to try and prove it.
"we inherit our blood from our male parent only"---spoken as fact from the pulpit
Just a couple off the top of my head

[John81]

From a well known highly respected fundamental pastor
The "Curse of Canaan" on black people----twisting scripture to try and prove it.
"we inherit our blood from our male parent only"---spoken as fact from the pulpit
Just a couple off the top of my head

Yes, anyone can twist Scripture, likely all of us here know that, yet pointing that out doesn't prove or disprove the views previously mentioned.

[trc123]

Yes, anyone can twist Scripture, likely all of us here know that, yet pointing that out doesn't prove or disprove the views previously mentioned.

You asked a question, he answered it and then you discounted it.......that's very rich.

[John81]

You asked a question, he answered it and then you discounted it.......that's very rich.

That's not an answer. That was a statement that some people have, perhaps still do, twist certain other Scriptures. That fact doesn't prove or disprove that being discussed.

Some say Scripture says infant baptism is right, some say not, both cite Scripture. To simply say one side or another may be twisting Scripture because some have twisted Scripture about a curse in the OT, doesn't answer whether one or both the baptism views are biblically right or wrong.