The Rise of the Papacy

Ligonier Ministries ^ | David Wells

[af_vet_1981]

I see the markings of a major league control freak. Trying to put women in submission to anyone or anything, and expressing a desire to control all non-Jewish people.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[af_vet_1981]

I mean, I do understand the male ego often has trouble when shown up by a woman. I guess I can understand then the desire to be a chauvinist and use Scripture to manipulate the desired behavior out of woman.

A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.

[CynicalBear]

I don’t see the teaching of “denominations” in that.

[af_vet_1981]

I don’t see the teaching of “denominations” in that.

Number 9 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

[Springfield Reformer]

I guess we are continuing in the "limited benefit" phase our discussion now. I had mistakenly interpreted your language to mean you were finished ...

I had thought I was finished, but you raised that "argument from ignorance" again, and I felt it was necessary to challenge that.  The rest simply flowed from that starting point.

Using the term "father" or "rabbi" or "mister" for a priest, rabbi, or husband does not does NOT necessarily convey the kind of adulation Jesus was prohibiting either.

Limited benefit indeed. "mister" can be dismissed because it is linguistically not the same as Master, and really you have to know that, so I won't belabor the point, other that to express my surprise at your persistence in presenting an argument that has no linguistic credibility. Although I will say I have seen several other posters who use etymology to try and prove things that aren't true also. It's a form of the genetic fallacy. Where something came from a long time ago is no indicator of it's current value or usage.  In modern context, "mister" is not an ecclesiastical title, whereas "rabbi" is. I am somewhat embarrassed at having to repeatedly state the blazing obvious here, but I am trying to be accommodating.

"husband" isn't prohibited.  It's not on the list. Why you put it there I have no idea. It might do us well to limit the discussion to those terms that actually are prohibted. But as I said before, under the spirit of the law, any title NOT listed, if it became the source of the same sort of abuse, would be good to let go of.  Better to enter Heaven without your title, than end up in that other place with one's titular pride in tact.

As for clients with ecclesiastical titles, I would probably not use "Pastor Rick Warren," either.  Not as a matter of compliance with the injuction on titles ("pastor" is not prohibited), but just as a matter of habit.  I've rubbed shoulders with some folks who are national figures, or who were otherwise brilliant and highly accomplished in their field. My experience is they too are dismissive of their own titles. The better they are, the more dismissive.  The petty people do get worked up about such things. It's actually one of my heuristics for getting a sense of someone's true ability. The insecure cling to titles. The gifted just keep using their gift.

Are you ignoring the introduction, or is this an interperative style to "re-form" the text to apply to your generation ? Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
It was a Jewish issue.

The Jews did have an issue with titles. I am not contesting that. But that doesn't mean the directions of Jesus were for Jews only. That's a non sequitur. We know from many other texts the apostolic curriculum under Jesus was for the benefit of the ecclesia entire, and therefore not a Jewish issue, in that sense.  

As I already wrote, and write again, the Apostles did not refer to themselves as "Rabbi." Yet they did refer to themselves as "father" and "master." Between you and them, I trust the Apostles to have correctly understood and interpreted Jesus' words. You yourself have used the word "Father" and "Mister" which are also, as you claim, expressly prohibited, the former sparingly and the latter at will.

And as I have already written, and write again, the apostolic references to themselves as fathers etc were simple descriptives of real functional relationships, and not in the nature of ecclesiastical titles. What you seem to be doing here is blurring those lines to disprove the injunction altogether.  This is the very thing Jesus was angry about with the Pharisees. Remember the rule of Corban? The obvious sense of the statute was obscured by "nuancing" the funds away from the elderly parents, all done by very pious sounding rules that seemed to give everyone their due but in fact cheated those elderly parents.

And here's where the critical problem lies. Blurring those lines is playing games with categories that God set up for our benefit.  It doesn't lead to understanding. It leads to confusion. How many other statements of Scripture given explicitly to the apostles, the earthly founders of the "One New Man," can be dismissed as "Jewish issues?" It's a blank check. Fill it in however you like. But don't expect the rest of us to go along for that ride.  It leads only to darkness.

Jesus was not extending His grace to Gentiles in Matthew 23. He is speaking to the Jews.

He was speaking to the Apostles, and through them and the directions He gave them He speaks to the entire body of believers. Those rules on titles were given with a basis in universal principles, specifically the unity of spiritual authority and paternity and wisdom we have in Christ as our Master, God as our Father, and the Holy Spirit as our Teacher. Those reasons hold up for all believers.

"Overseer Paul" "Presybter Paul" convey the same sense of honorific that you prohibit, your circular arguments notwithstanding. The apostles used "father" in a spiritual sense.

Evidently they don't convey anything to be prohibited, or they would have been on the list of prohibited titles. Furthermore, I don't see those even being used as titles.  The apostolic practice just didn't get into titles.

"Father" used in a spiritual sense and drawing more circles to get out of the box.

Circles? Really? Where? Demonstrate your case.  Mere accusation of circular reasoning is great fun but it's even better if you can prove it.  What I see happening instead is a firm resistance to allowing any distinctions in usage, only because this serves the purpose of dismantling the injunction.  In law, in my brief-writing, I make distinctions of use all the time. The problem with an environment like this is that we have no earthly judge to declare the validity of the distinctions proposed. So you can go on your merry way denying them and I on my merry way asserting them indefinitely. But that doesn't make them circles. Such distinctions are off-ramps from endless circles of confusion.  They make sense of the text, even if the sense they make is a bit hard to swallow.

You contend that something did not happen because it is not recorded.

That's not an accurate statement of my position. My position is the burden of proof is on you to show that the apostles proved they were dismissive of Christ's injunction by taking on ecclesiastical titles. You are trying to prove their "interpretation" by virtue of an action you say they took.  OK, if they took that action, where is it?  It's your premise to prove, not mine. I don't have to try and prove an infinite negative. You have to affirm the positive, and you have to provide evidence for your assertion. You have tried with the "informal uses" argument, and perhaps that is enough to convince you.  It doesn't get anywhere close to convincing me, not when the risk, the downside to getting this wrong, is being disobedient to Christ. That is too big a risk to take, without affirmative apostolic evidence for formal, ecclesiastical titles of the kind you propose.

As for the factional controversy, yes there was one, and what was Paul's response to it?

1Co 3:3-8  For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?  (4)  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?  (5)  Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?  (6)  I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.  (7)  So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.  (8)  Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

Seems to me like Paul sounds like a good old school Baptist here, telling everybody all caught up with their labels to stop the nonsense. The furthest thing from this passage is any kind of apostolic sanctioning of labels. There are acceptable labels for believers.  The ecclesia, Christians, the Bride of Christ, the One New Man, etc etc.  But no labels are ever approved that would tend to the division of that body of Christ, neither divisions of factions as in the passage above, nor divisions of sacerdotal hierarchy, as we are all priests in His kingdom, and all under One Master and One High Priest. If Paul rejects such factional labels, and points us instead to God as the One who give us our unified spiritual life, and describes us underlings (he who waters, he who sows) as being in unity, then why would he turn around and abrogate all that by advocating for titles that create division by hierarchy? He wouldn't, and he didn't. If you believe otherwise, knock yourself out and bring on the proof.

I don't want you to believe he was called "Abba Paul" I want you to acknowledge that he may have been called by that, or another similar, honorific, since he referred to himself as their "Abba," albeit in Greek

I have no reason to accept that premise, as you have not met your burden of proof. It isn't as though we're discussing mere descriptive history here.  Your objective, to all appearances, is to dismantle the effect of Jesus' injunction against certain ecclesiastical titles. You do this by trying to relegate universal principles to being "just a Jewish issue." But that is specious, so you try to back up that faulty premise by showing the apostles didn't take the command seriously, so they must have thought it was just a Jewish issue too.  But that doesn't work because not one of their usages of the prohibited terms qualifies as a formal ecclesiastical title of the kind prohibited.  So then you propose facts not in evidence to support your secondary premise of apostolic rejection of Jesus' direct command.

That last move doesn't work. Here's why. If there was no context of a prohibition, the "absence of evidence would not be evidence of absence," because arguments from silence are generally invalid, true.  But that's not your exact situation here. Unlike a totally neutral situation, we have here what in law we would call a rebuttable presumption in favor of the prohibition.  This is a direct command of Jesus to the apostles.  It creates the expectation that they will obey it. Their disobedience to it would be noteworthy, and require either a justification, or a finding of disobedience. No affirmative evidence for either has been presented thus far. Therefore the presumption of obedience to the facial meaning of the prohibition stands. Put in simpler terms, the apostles are innocent until proven guilty.

SR: You know what it reminds me of? Try this. Imagine I tell you there's an earth-like planet on the other side of the sun. Nobody's ever seen it, true, but I happen to know it's populated by little green men. And you can't prove me wrong, because you can't see what's on the other side of the sun. So it must be true, right? That's the same logic you're using. It doesn't work.

AF: Incongruent and silly

You may think so if you wish, but if it is silly, it is only because the argument from ignorance is silly. I have used an example which is similar to arguments I have seen actually presented in support fanciful ideas of ufologists, mother ships, aliens amongst us, fairies, and all other manner of utter nonsense. Leprechauns are much more credible of course, because they are so exceptionally good at hiding, just like all those "Father Paul" references. But I digress ...

The third alternative is that you misinterpret the text, not understanding what Jesus taught.

Absolutely true. That is a possibility for both of us, is it not?  I make no claim of infallibility.  Do you? And if you do not, by what authority do expect me to accept your interpretation?  Has your alleged magisterium addressed this specific passage infallibly? If so, have you infallibly interpreted their statement? And have you presented your infallible interpretation to me infallibly? I propose a negative answer on all three counts. Rome is just another schismatic faction: "We are of Rome" only works for those who have bought into the premise that such a claim is sufficient to guaratee infallible declaration of divine truth. If you want circular reasoning, there you have it.  For my part, I will not rsik disobedience to Christ on unsupportable, factionally biased claims that have no Scriptural authority. The downside is just too steep.  No thanks.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Interesting; so now "church" is a place and not a people. I'll go with the Apostle to the Gentiles on this one.

LOL. No, really, that's a Laugh Out Loud moment. Not for the Scripture, but for your use of it. Reminds me of that joke circulating in my early days.  A man came upon a Scripture that said "Judas went out and hanged hisself." Not being very comforted, the man flipped some pages and randomly put his finger on another passage, which said "Go thou and do likewise."

Once you start lifting passages totally out of context like that, you stop being in a real conversation about what the text means. Any serious student of Scripture knows 1 Timothy is predominantly a pastor's manual for Timothy, and focuses on the inner life and practice of the church. If an interpreter of Scripture can blur such obvious lines to extend that rule to operate outside the public meetings, then no meaningful interpretation can be discovered. Without context, like the joke above, the Scriptures become random text you can string together any way you like, prove any point you wish.  Serious analysis becomes impossible.

But humoring you somewhat in this quasi-random approach, I would invite you back to context by asking this: What about Priscilla, mentioned above by another poster? How is it that Priscilla was allowed with her husband Aquila to evangelize Apollos?

Act 18:24-26  And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.  (25)  This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.  (26)  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Now if this boundary-less and never ending church meeting theory of yours were true, wouldn't Paul disapprove of Priscilla's action? Yet we find Paul and Aquila and Prisca (her proper name) to be among the closest of friends.

Rom 16:3-4  Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:  (4)  Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

And:

1Co 16:19  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Um, these do not seem like the kinds of things the Apostle would say about someone who was flagrantly violating his rule of church order by teaching, actually expounding Scripture, to not just a man, but a man highly gifted of God in eloquence and Scriptural knowledge.

So how could this discrepancy arise if your context free, absolutist understanding of "suffering not a woman to teach or usurp authority over the man but be silent" is correct? Well that's the point. It couldn't. So either the Priscilla story is fiction (which we would both reject, I'm sure), or your context free, absolutist understanding of that passage is seriously flawed.  

I propose the latter, on several grounds. First, as we have already stated, the context of 1Timothy generally is Paul giving instructions to young pastor Timothy in the conduct of the life of his local congregation.  See 1 Timothy 3:14-15 for confirmation, if you like. Christian fellowships are composed of people, true, who periodically meet in a place. Also true? Surely so. I do not see any good reason to obfuscate or ignore that reality:

Heb 10:25  Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

But under your extremist interpretation, not only would Priscilla be unable to speak, at all, in the public meeting (which is also an abuse of the underlying Greek - see discussion below), but she couldn't speak, at all, in any setting, public or private, not so much as to answer her name if asked, IF another believer were present, because that would invoke Paul's ubiquitous rules of church order. Sharia law is not even that bad.

So you see why some of us might have a hard time taking that line of reasoning seriously. Much better to be open to the ordinary sense of the text as Paul is addressing issues of conduct related to teaching, one of which was that the women of Timothy's fellowship needed to be listening and not chatting among themselves or trying to take over what was under the authority of the man, in this case no doubt the teaching ministry of Timothy, the elders, and the general authority of husbands.

The term the KJV translates as "usurp authority" is authenteō, which AT Robertson renders as dominion, in the sense of "playing the master" over someone. So the KJV sense is pretty good. When the public teaching is being conducted, Paul is instructing the women to not step on or ignore that authority, but to listen with quietude (Greek hesuchia).  The term used is not the one typically used for absolute, total silence, but more for stillness, and says more about attitude than actual content of speech.  Indeed, it is good for the divine teaching ministry if every listener adopts that sense of quietness and receptiveness to the message of God.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

There you go, making sense again.

And you think that’s going to get you where exactly?

You know this is the RF.

(Thanks for the well thought out and well expressed posts.)

[FourtySeven]

Call No Man Father?

af vet already addressed many of the points in that link but there's some more there to consider I think. Specifically:

So What Did Jesus Mean?

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

See the link for more.

[af_vet_1981]

LOL. No, really, that's a Laugh Out Loud moment. Not for the Scripture, but for your use of it. Reminds me of that joke circulating in my early days. A man came upon a Scripture that said "Judas went out and hanged hisself." Not being very comforted, the man flipped some pages and randomly put his finger on another passage, which said "Go thou and do likewise." Once you start lifting passages totally out of context like that, you stop being in a real conversation about what the text means. Any serious student of Scripture knows 1 Timothy is predominantly a pastor's manual for Timothy, and focuses on the inner life and practice of the church. If an interpreter of Scripture can blur such obvious lines to extend that rule to operate outside the public meetings, then no meaningful interpretation can be discovered. Without context, like the joke above, the Scriptures become random text you can string together any way you like, prove any point you wish. Serious analysis becomes impossible. But humoring you somewhat in this quasi-random approach, I would invite you back to context by asking this: What about Priscilla, mentioned above by another poster? How is it that Priscilla was allowed with her husband Aquila to evangelize Apollos?

Your insult will not be returned. I would have answered your question for the asking.

1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
2. Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
3. And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: for he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Notice that father/son language again. Note the apostolic succession in 2 Tim 2:2. Although you may refer to Paul's epistles as "pastor's manuals," (although Timothy is called Bishop of Ephesus), which phrase you may have picked up in some Bible College or Seminary, along with a smattering of Greek and Hebrew, you must already know first that Timothy was a Jew, born of a Jewish mother who taught him the faith of the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but whose father was a Greek who presumably prevented his circumcision. Paul corrected this by circumcising Timothy.

Now this is important. Aquila and Priscilla were also Jews, married, and considered by tradition to have been among the original disciples of Messiah. That means they may have witnessed the entire ministry of Jesus from his baptism to ascension and Aquila would be eligible to be an apostle. If you know Orthodox Jews, you would recognize in their synagogues and public life the holy and pious behavior of the women along the lines that Paul was referring to. You would not find a contentious and rebellious Orthodox wife disputing publicly with Orthodox men about religious matters. This in no way reflects unfavorably on her intelligence, education, and judgement. Now, privately, in the relaxed comfort and sanctity of her home, with her husband present and in concert with him, she may share pearls of wisdom with you, being a man. She would certainly share such pearls with your wife and daughter. With men it would not be publicly, but privately, without rebellious or contentious disputation. This is exactly what Priscilla did, in concert with her husband Aquila, privately taking another Jew, Apollos, into their home to share what they knew about the Lord from their being original disciples.

All three of these Jewish believers are canonized as saints.

[CynicalBear]

Yes, I didn’t there was any teaching about denominations.

[Springfield Reformer]

Your insult will not be returned. I would have answered your question for the asking.

I am sorry. My intent was only to poke fun at your disembodied quote, and perhaps to vent some frustration at your exegetical technique.  I assure you it was not designed to be taken as a personal insult.

Anyway, I am sure Priscilla's communication with Apollos was demure and respectful. That is not my main point.  The Priscilla incident simply stands as proof that Paul's "silence" directive is NOT some sort of universal gag order on sharing the Gospel in public settings.  That is beyond ridiculous, and the idea needs to be identified as such. I am unaware of any Scriptural rule limiting "street evangelism," which is what this is, to male-only participation.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Thanks for the post. I am familiar with the hyperbole argument, and have rejected it. Not that there is no such thing as hyperbole in Biblical literature, but that it is simply unnecessary to apply it here, i.e., the text may be understood without resorting to it. I will try to get you a more analytical response later.

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

The Priscilla incident simply stands as proof that Paul's "silence" directive is NOT some sort of universal gag order on sharing the Gospel in public settings.

1. Priscilla and Aquila were not sharing the Gospel in a public setting with Apollos. They were in shul (synagogue), heard his teaching, and took him into their own home to privately explain and fill in him on the way of God more completely. This makes a lot of sense, if they had been with the Lord Jesus for his entire ministry. Apollos had been with John and had already been "evangelized"; no doubt they would want to share all they had spiritually with him. And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. It really is preposterous that a Jewish woman rose up in the synagogue to "share the Gospel" with Jewish men, disputing and contending with them in the Torah. You might get Hollywood to make a feminist movie like that but it would be fantasy. Paul and the Lord expressly forbade it.
2. Note here it reads "Aquila and Priscilla" with the obvious assumption that Aquila, who later became a bishop in Asia Minor according to tradition, taking the proper lead, supported by his loving and faithful helpmeet.

[metmom]

And here we still see the disconnect where some are held to standards of behavior that others are not.

For some reason, those Catholics who wish to ignore clear, direct, plainly stated commands by Jesus Himself about not calling any man *Father*, dance around it, rationalize it, justify it, excuse it, interpret it away. They do all the things that Catholics accuse Protestants of doing as the reason sola Scriptura is not valid.

Yet they demand strict adherence by others to their interpretation of a comment Paul made.

Rules for thee but not for me.

If Catholics choose to blow off Jesus' clear command to not call any other religious leader *Father*, then they have no gripe when I choose to blow off their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

[af_vet_1981]

And here we still see the disconnect where some are held to standards of behavior that others are not.

Concur

[Springfield Reformer]

Priscilla and Aquila were not sharing the Gospel in a public setting with Apollos. They were in shul (synagogue), heard his teaching, and took him into their own home to privately explain and fill in him on the way of God more completely

Very likely exactly as it played out, but the text is not explicit as to the setting, so it is impossible to say the setting was in fact private. See Acts 18:26. And I never said nor envisioned this being some dramatic Hollywood moment at synagogue. I don't know where you got that from.  All along the contested issue between us has been sharing the Gospel in this public setting. FR. You seem to want to turn any public setting, electronic or otherwise, into an open air synagogue running under a gag order against women.  The fact that Priscilla could do that sharing, whether within her own home or in some other unspecified setting, is demonstration that your rendering of the "silence" directive as a rule that applies outside the public meeting is incorrect.  Indeed, your reliance on the respectful atmosphere of the synagogue as mitigating against a "Hollywood moment" shows that even you understand the significance of the setting, whereas your misuse of Paul's "silence" directive, at least the way you cited it sans context, give no quarter, but you make it seem absolute to any and all settings, locations, places, and circumstances, which is an unsupportable position.  

As for feminism, it is no bow to Marxist feminism to reject the radical misapplication of a rule of order for Christian public meetings.  The equality of the sexes under Marx is a design to eradicate the divine order in natural gender characteristics and roles. Whereas those who follow Jesus and expound the Scriptures unto others, be they Apollos or FR posters, as the revelation of Christ and His redemptive message to the world are actively reinforcing the divine order:

Gal 3:27-28  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  (28)  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Unlike Marx, who seeks to impose his egalitarianism externally and coercively through the political order, Christian egalitarianism is a function of being equal in spirit by supernatural birth into the family of God through the work of Christ.  We were both equally lost in the darkness of sin until our Redeemer cast off our chains.  And while we live in these mortal bodies we are subject to the divine order for biological genders, nevertheless we have equal standing before God and equally irrepressible joy in our new life in Christ that is impossible to NOT talk about and share with any who will listen.  This liberty we have in Christ should never be conflated with the Marxist error of feminism. They are as different as night and day.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

I see desperation setting in in trying to silence women.

It ain’t working and I will not be brow beaten by some anonymous internet poster who thinks they can control others who are making them look bad.

Shutting me up will not change the clear command of Jesus to not call any religious leader on earth by the title of *father*. It was there before I was born and will be there long after I die, and it will not go away even if I can’t speak out on it.

The only thing that is silenced, for a season, maybe, is that inner voice of conscience that knows what is truth and what is not. And it’s not going to go away even if I do.

[af_vet_1981]

All along the contested issue between us has been sharing the Gospel in this public setting.

Not true; the issue in question is women teaching men doctrine. This is not sharing, usurping is a more fitting term.

1. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
2. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
3. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: All along the contested issue between us has been sharing the Gospel in this public setting.

AF: Not true; the issue in question is women teaching men doctrine. This is not sharing, usurping is a more fitting term

Hmm, well, I never bought your premise that the rules of church order you keep citing have anything to do with street evangelism. If I gave you that impression somewhere along the line, I am sorry but it isn't so. This isn't a Christian public meeting.  This is a few Christians and a few cultists and a few interested onlookers (you know who you are!) meeting in cyber-public space.  You haven't made your case that Paul's anti-chatter rules have anything to do with this setting.  Therefore, you must understand that however well intended, your specious claims look to us like an attempt to misapply those rules here on FR.  For us, this is street evangelism.  Authority can't be usurped where it doesn't exist.  No anonymous poster coming to this forum can presume ecclesiastical authority over anyone.  

As for your reference to Jezebel, it is positively incindiary for its misrepresentation of the circumstances. There is no proscription in Scripture against female prophetesses in principle.  Go back and reread your passage on Jezebel.  Was her condemnation for being a female teaching males, or was it for teaching fornication? ANY prophet, male or female, who advocates open sin would be justly condemned for such an outrage.   Consider Balaam, son of Beor, for example.  He too corrupted the children of Israel with equally horrific perversions. And a male.  Yet God chose to speak to him through a mere beast of burden.  

But God has chosen to speak through both men and women. Remember Anna, the prophetess?

Luk 2:36-38  And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;  (37)  And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.  (38)  And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

So here's a faithful woman of God, called a prophetess by designation, coming into the Temple just as Simeon was blessing the baby Jesus, and what does she do? She spoke to everyone there who was looking forward to the messianic redemption spoken of by the prophets.  That's doctrine.  Yes, it is.  Doctrine is just another word for teaching divine truth. And she did this in the presence of adult males, two of whom we know by name, Simeon and Joseph.  So she joins the ranks of Priscilla, who most certainly was empowered to teach doctrine to men, albeit with all due respect and grace of speech, and thus forms a second counterexample to disprove your interpretation of Paul's directive for the public meeting.

And if you argue those are not enough, then what of this?

1Co 11:5  But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Hmm.  Here we have Paul explicitly giving directions for how a woman should conduct herself in what activity? Prophesying, speaking forth the truth God has given her.  In what setting?  A public meeting of the ecclesia.  Which we both know at Corinth was a bit chaotic, and so Paul here has to address the various problems of that congregation. But in so doing we see he offers a rule for a conduct you say is prohibited, which makes no sense, unless you have taken that "silence" rule to extremes never envisioned by the same person who wrote the rule. Paul is the human author of both texts, and of course God is the author in the ultimate sense. So they both have to be right.

The best reconciliation I have found so far is that the Greek terms involved pertain more to disruptive chatter than to prophetic teaching under proper authority.  I will confess as I started this discussion my own view was fairly restrictive (though by no means your extreme view of a universal gag order on women in any setting), but having the occasion to study it somewhat for purposes of our conversation I am beginning to believe even my own view may have need of better calibration to the Scriptures.

One question.  In your fellowship, do the women sing? If so, do they speak divine truth in the words of the song? Is not worshipful singing a form of teaching also? So wouldn't it need to be, for you to be consistent, that your women didn't sing in the presence of men? I shudder to think of the poor, baritone congregation stuck with that, shall we say, eclectic view of Paul's teaching. Oh let's not mince words.  It's utter nonsense. And bad music too.

More later, if you're still interested. I'll do some Greek word study to back the "chatter" analysis.  Meanwhile, I'm off to church, um, the public meeting, that is.  Our women sing, and very well too. :)

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

You seem to want to turn any public setting, electronic or otherwise, into an open air synagogue running under a gag order against women.

hmm, a similar mischaracterization might be "You seem to want to turn any public setting, electronic or otherwise into an open air shuk (market), preempting and setting at nought the Scriptural commandments against genuine Christian women teaching men.

How slippery is the slope in reformed Baptist churches ? Today in America there are twice as many women senior pastors as there were a decade ago. Women like Penson are providing capable leadership in many denominations, but females still haven’t assumed the larger pulpits in the same numbers as men.

According to the California-based research institute The Barna Group, one in 10 U.S. churches employs a female senior pastor. That’s a remarkable increase in a short time, considering that, until recently, women in the pulpit were an anomaly.

Those numbers are encouraging for people who see the issue of females in ministry as one of equality and justice, but even the optimists admit that women have a long way to go in terms of reaching parity with their male colleagues.