Join Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, J.J Seid and Sams Storms as they discuss the issue surround the role of women in the home, the church and society.
Join Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, J.J Seid and Sams Storms as they discuss the issue surround the role of women in the home, the church and society.
9 replies to "Theology Unplugged – The Role of Women"
Strange… Sounds just like part 1!
appreciated this.. was this different that part 1?
how important, acknowledging the work of the Spirit is, not denying God, for we know without Him we can do nothing; isn’t this verse highlighting for all time, THE division/distinction: those who have and those who do not have His Spirit, believing as He has said, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:3
if you know that Jesus works were of the Spirit, thereby the Father, then the kingdom of God has come upon you, otherwise=Spirit blasphemy which is an eternal sin which never has forgiveness— because they say “Jesus did not have Spirit, Father’s works not of His Spirit” Matt 12 28-31;Mark 3 29
a division occurred among the Jews: 1)sheep who believe Jesus did the work of Father, by the Spirit, the Father in Jesus/Jesus in the Father;2) non-sheep without belief John 1019-38 and Paul, formerly a blasphemer, was shown mercy becoming a Jew inwardly through circumcision of the heart by the Spirit 1 Tim 1 13-14 ;Rom 2 28-29
everyone who denies Jesus before men will be denied before the angels of God, but everyone who confesses Jesus before men, He will confess him before the angels of God which = not blaspheming and acknowledging it is the Holy Spirit enabling to do this Luke 12 8 -10
It is a trustworthy statement: If we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim 2 :11-13
My apologies everyone!
There was confusion regarding the file for this past weekend’s recording.
It has now been corrected and the actual radio broadcast/podcast is now reflected here in the blog post (and in the blog title as well) and also on iTunes.
Again my apologies for the error!
I was just hoping to clear something up, but I’m quite confident that I won’t get a response directly from Mr. Storms but will put it out there anyways.
During the podcast Mr. Storms said that (and I’m paraphrasing to a certain extent) because the modern condition of universities, para-church organizations and such did not exist at the time of Paul’s writing then Paul’s teaching concerning the role of women does not necessarily apply to these more modern institutions and settings. That unless there was a passage that directly addressed the current situation, then this passage does not address them.
It occurred to me that there are many teachings in the Bible that don’t have a direct application to today’s world, yet we draw principles from teachings and apply them to today’s world and circumstance. For instance intellectual property laws. I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that talks to intellectual property or copyright. Yet if someone pirates a book, song or movie we would say that they are stealing.
So how can we take a principle from the Bible and apply it to a context that did not exist at the time of writing in the case of copyright but not do it in the case of women’s authority in para-church settings?
When is it appropriate to do this or not do it? Is it a matter of personal conviction? Is there a rule from Biblical authority that would define for us when such applications could and should be applied in such a situation?
I’m not saying that I disagree with Mr. Storms’ viewpoint on the matter, just trying to clarify and understand the method of application, for if it were misconstrued it could be used to justify all sorts of wrong and/or damaging actions, that the Bible does speak to even if not in a specific chapter and verse fashion.
I haven’t had the chance to hear this yet … will need to get to a different computer that has sound. Just wanted to put out there, that I Corinthians 14:34-36 has an out-of-the-box but very sensible interpretation by Laurence R. Iannaccone (1982). He gives well-grounded reasons to believe that rather than Paul calling for women to be silent, Paul here was quoting what his Juadaizer opponents were saying, in order to then refute them. There is a pattern of such structure in other parts of the epistle. The verse says “in the law”, yet nowhere is this found in the biblical law, so it must be a law that Paul’s detractors had. (Extra-biblical documents show rabbinical laws against females speaking.) Paul shows anger and disbelief in verse 36, similar to chapter 4 verse 7. Paul had earlier commanded “all may prophesy”, yet in the passage 14:34-36 the silence is absolute. There are other points Iannaconne makes which together convince me that he is correct.
I’ve now had the chance to listen to it. I Corinthians 14:34-36 figures quite prominently in the discussion. I saw fit to send a snail mail copy of Iannaccone’s paper to the Credo House. I hope it is enlightening as food for thought. Many ways to interpret the passage were discussed, but nobody mentioned Iannoccone’s very convincing idea that Paul was quoting what his opponents were saying, and not teaching his readers that women should be silent. There is a difference – many differences actually – between this passage in particular and other passages about women in the Bible. I am not confusing one with the other. Iannaccone also makes this clear.
I’ve heard Greg Koukl (from Stand To Reason) speak on this subject and he was talking about how the in the Greek, the word translated as women here is translated as wife elsewhere and if we read wife rather than women it fits more consistently with other such passages in the Bible.
So rather than being a blanket proscription against women in general teaching men in general, it is more a reflection of the spiritual makeup of the family in that the man is to be the head of the household and the wife under his authority.
I’ve heard Greg Koukl (from Stand To Reason) speak on this subject and he was talking about how the in the Greek, the word translated as women here is translated as wife elsewhere and if we read wife rather than women it fits more consistently with other such passages in the Bible.
So rather than being a blanket proscription against women in general teaching men in general, it is more a reflection of the spiritual makeup of the family in that the man is to be the head of the household and the wife under his authority.
I personally know nothing about the original Greek language to be able to confirm or deny such an understanding but I do think that he is correct in that reading it as wife fits better with other such passages in the Bible.
Greg Koukl is trying to resolve only one problem – how we can read this passage with integrity and allow women to speak in church. He is leaving about 12 other exegetical problems unsolved which Iannaccone solves for us.