Comments on: Laying a false argument to rest http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/ This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled "Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?" This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women's ministry. Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:20:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Cheryl http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2023 Cheryl Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:11:52 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2023 Dusman, Great reasoning! I never saw it that way, but great, great reasoning! Dusman,
Great reasoning! I never saw it that way, but great, great reasoning!

]]> By: Dusman http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2021 Dusman Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:47:05 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2021 <i>One of the arguments that complementarians employ against women in ministry is the argument that God only used women as prophets and leaders in the Bible when there were no men available at the time. Is this really a valid argument?</i> No, it's not, because it leads to a reductio ad absurdum (reduces this specific argument to absurdity). Here's how: Premise 1: If some complementarians teach that God only uses women as prophets and spiritual leaders when there are no spiritually qualified men available, then such would apply to the 1st Century NT era as well. Premise 2: There were female prophets and bible teachers in the 1st Century, New Testament era (Acts 2:17; 18:26; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5; Titus 2:3-5). Conclusion: Therefore, there were no spiritually qualified men in the 1st Century NT era. Obviously, the above syllogism shows the absurdity of this argument. :-)> One of the arguments that complementarians employ against women in ministry is the argument that God only used women as prophets and leaders in the Bible when there were no men available at the time. Is this really a valid argument?

No, it’s not, because it leads to a reductio ad absurdum (reduces this specific argument to absurdity). Here’s how:

Premise 1: If some complementarians teach that God only uses women as prophets and spiritual leaders when there are no spiritually qualified men available, then such would apply to the 1st Century NT era as well.

Premise 2: There were female prophets and bible teachers in the 1st Century, New Testament era (Acts 2:17; 18:26; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5; Titus 2:3-5).

Conclusion: Therefore, there were no spiritually qualified men in the 1st Century NT era.

Obviously, the above syllogism shows the absurdity of this argument. :-)>

]]> By: Michael Terran http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2006 Michael Terran Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:21:09 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2006 Jude 14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” Revelation 19 8It was given to her to clothe herself in (A)fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the (B)righteous acts of the saints. 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in (AT)fine linen, (AU)white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 1 Corinthians 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? The point I'm making with these scriptures is this, we come back with Christ at the end of the 7 year Trib.. Notice "The Saints" " The Bride" are made up of Male and Female Born-Again believes (On white Horses prepared for war!). Christ is treating the body of believes as ONE! We know Christ does the fighting but we are all with Him together as One. Also in the next life The Saints (Male & Female) will judge the world! Just from these passages alone I see no division but biblical equality/unity! Also about the OT being only male leaders, we have to remember that God is working "Within" a cursed sinful world! Once there was enough Godly men that rise up the Godly Women would take there Equal rule along side them without hinder. Just like Adam is Made first and then Woman (Eve), then she comes alone side him to take her Equal rule with him! We do know that God does call Women into Leadership and sometime a woman is Gods first and only choice. I do see a pattern in the old testament and in the New. The 12 apostles being only male because the 12 apostles represent the 12 son's of Jacob/12 tribes: Revelation 21 12It had a great and high wall, (AJ)with twelve (AK)gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. 13There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west. 14And the wall of the city had (AL)twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the (AM)twelve apostles of the Lamb. He (Jesus) was letting Israel/Jerusalem know he wants to make a New Israel/New Covenant/Bringing Salvation. If Jesus had put a women as one of the 12 it would have been to confusing for the Jews at that time! They needed to look back to scripture to see this! Later we see Junia (Female) as an apostle not of the 12 but never the less an apostle like Paul! In the end it all balances out! Also we know God is not done with Little Natural Israel as a Nation. Jude
14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

Revelation 19

8It was given to her to clothe herself in (A)fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the (B)righteous acts of the saints.

14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in (AT)fine linen, (AU)white and clean, were following Him on white horses.

1 Corinthians 6:2
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?

The point I’m making with these scriptures is this, we come back with Christ at the end of the 7 year Trib.. Notice “The Saints” ” The Bride” are made up of Male and Female Born-Again believes (On white Horses prepared for war!). Christ is treating the body of believes as ONE! We know Christ does the fighting but we are all with Him together as One. Also in the next life The Saints (Male & Female) will judge the world! Just from these passages alone I see no division but biblical equality/unity!

Also about the OT being only male leaders, we have to remember that God is working “Within” a cursed sinful world! Once there was enough Godly men that rise up the Godly Women would take there Equal rule along side them without hinder. Just like Adam is Made first and then Woman (Eve), then she comes alone side him to take her Equal rule with him! We do know that God does call Women into Leadership and sometime a woman is Gods first and only choice. I do see a pattern in the old testament and in the New.

The 12 apostles being only male because the 12 apostles represent the 12 son’s of Jacob/12 tribes:

Revelation 21
12It had a great and high wall, (AJ)with twelve (AK)gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.

13There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west.

14And the wall of the city had (AL)twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the (AM)twelve apostles of the Lamb.

He (Jesus) was letting Israel/Jerusalem know he wants to make a New Israel/New Covenant/Bringing Salvation. If Jesus had put a women as one of the 12 it would have been to confusing for the Jews at that time! They needed to look back to scripture to see this! Later we see Junia (Female) as an apostle not of the 12 but never the less an apostle like Paul! In the end it all balances out!

Also we know God is not done with Little Natural Israel as a Nation.

]]> By: Cheryl http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2004 Cheryl Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:22:59 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2004 Great points, Don, Greg and Lin! Great points, Don, Greg and Lin!

]]> By: Lin http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2003 Lin Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:09:03 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2003 "To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ’s efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation." I never thought of it like that before. But when I ask comps if Jesus left earthly priests for women after the cross, they actually equivocate because they do see the husbands role as her priest. they just do not like the way I describe it. They say, "head" ans she submits to the head... but their interpretation of head is really 'earthly priest' when you get right down to it. “To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ’s efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation.”

I never thought of it like that before. But when I ask comps if Jesus left earthly priests for women after the cross, they actually equivocate because they do see the husbands role as her priest. they just do not like the way I describe it. They say, “head” ans she submits to the head… but their interpretation of head is really ‘earthly priest’ when you get right down to it.

]]> By: Greg Anderson http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2002 Greg Anderson Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:31:32 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2002 I think a lot of this stuff goes back to the old "descriptive" vs "prescriptive" arguments. Wayne Grudem, who is known in some circles as "the godfather of complementarianism", maintains that since Huldah spoke to just five guys and that it was done privately and not to Israel as a corporate assembly, it was ok in God's eyes. Grudem also maintains that there is a sharp distinction between the role of prophesying and teaching among God's people both in the Old and New Testaments. Sharp distinction? How so? As Kevin Giles has pointed out, both scripture and human utterances when under the Holy Spirit are the very words of God, and to elevate one above the other is special pleading. Let's get down to brass tacks here. What this whole controversy revolves around is Paul's famous first letter to his protege (Timothy) in Ephesus. If it is a descriptive refutation of false teaching, that is, the Apostle's response to a specific situation in the Ephesian congregation, then we can move on with confidence that the reformation did not end with Luther and Calvin, and that it is ongoing, with us as an organic unity. To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ's efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation. I think a lot of this stuff goes back to the old “descriptive” vs “prescriptive” arguments. Wayne Grudem, who is known in some circles as “the godfather of complementarianism”, maintains that since Huldah spoke to just five guys and that it was done privately and not to Israel as a corporate assembly, it was ok in God’s eyes. Grudem also maintains that there is a sharp distinction between the role of prophesying and teaching among God’s people both in the Old and New Testaments. Sharp distinction? How so? As Kevin Giles has pointed out, both scripture and human utterances when under the Holy Spirit are the very words of God, and to elevate one above the other is special pleading. Let’s get down to brass tacks here. What this whole controversy revolves around is Paul’s famous first letter to his protege (Timothy) in Ephesus. If it is a descriptive refutation of false teaching, that is, the Apostle’s response to a specific situation in the Ephesian congregation, then we can move on with confidence that the reformation did not end with Luther and Calvin, and that it is ongoing, with us as an organic unity. To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ’s efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation.

]]> By: Don Johnson http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2001 Don Johnson Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:54:58 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2001 The "traditionalist" side in any discussion can always say that those that do not follow their lead end include those that do X, where X is something negative. This is a totally spurious argument, it is a scare tactic. It only works on those who are scared, unfortunately, this seems to be significant number of believers. Here is a chain demolishing some arguments, this is not original with me. 1. The Bible says that Miriam was a leader of the Israelites, along with Moses and Aaron, but perhaps she only led women. 2. But Deborah led men (sat in authority over them), being a judge, but perhaps God used her as their were no suitable men. 3. But Huldah declared at least Deuteronomy (and perhaps the Pentateuch) to be God's word, even though there were other male prophets available to consult, including Jeremiah. The “traditionalist” side in any discussion can always say that those that do not follow their lead end include those that do X, where X is something negative. This is a totally spurious argument, it is a scare tactic. It only works on those who are scared, unfortunately, this seems to be significant number of believers.

Here is a chain demolishing some arguments, this is not original with me.
1. The Bible says that Miriam was a leader of the Israelites, along with Moses and Aaron, but perhaps she only led women.
2. But Deborah led men (sat in authority over them), being a judge, but perhaps God used her as their were no suitable men.
3. But Huldah declared at least Deuteronomy (and perhaps the Pentateuch) to be God’s word, even though there were other male prophets available to consult, including Jeremiah.

]]> By: Justa Berean http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2000 Justa Berean Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:09:27 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-2000 Lin wrote: <i>Or about the argument that history proves that all denominations that have ordained women or had women in leadership became liberal in doctrine which started their downfall?</i> Hey it could have been to much spicy food that made them all crazy. We should check the locations of all those churches that became liberal enough to notice they were liberal. :) Lin wrote: Or about the argument that history proves that all denominations that have ordained women or had women in leadership became liberal in doctrine which started their downfall?

Hey it could have been to much spicy food that made them all crazy. We should check the locations of all those churches that became liberal enough to notice they were liberal. :)

]]> By: Cheryl http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-1999 Cheryl Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:11:52 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-1999 We will lay all of these false arguments to rest one at a time. The argument that God used a woman because he couldn't find a man is used in the same breath as God used a donkey when he couldn't find a man. It is insulting to God and insulting to the women that God chooses to use. We will lay all of these false arguments to rest one at a time. The argument that God used a woman because he couldn’t find a man is used in the same breath as God used a donkey when he couldn’t find a man. It is insulting to God and insulting to the women that God chooses to use.

]]> By: Lin http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-1998 Lin Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:04:52 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/#comment-1998 What about the argument that women leaders or prophets were not the 'norm' back in the OT and for that reason the few ones were non normative and if God had intended it otherwise we would see much more of it? Or that none of the Apostles were women and if God wanted to show that women were not in universal submission He would have had a woman apostle? Or about the argument that history proves that all denominations that have ordained women or had women in leadership became liberal in doctrine which started their downfall? I keep hearing these same tired arguments. What about the argument that women leaders or prophets were not the ‘norm’ back in the OT and for that reason the few ones were non normative and if God had intended it otherwise we would see much more of it?

Or that none of the Apostles were women and if God wanted to show that women were not in universal submission He would have had a woman apostle?

Or about the argument that history proves that all denominations that have ordained women or had women in leadership became liberal in doctrine which started their downfall?

I keep hearing these same tired arguments.

]]>