The Instigator
daley
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The Bible Teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,789 times Debate No: 15861
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (8)

 

daley

Pro

The debate I read between Zealous1 and Staerkel on "the Bible does not teach that women should teach men in the church" has inspired me to argue that it does teach that women should teach men in the church.

My first point is that God is fair, and if he is fair he cannot practice gender discriminisation. Women can lead just as well as men and it is discriminatory to allow only men to have positions of leadership. This would reflect poorly on God.

I Cor. 14:3-5 states, "Everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" and "builds up the church." Verses 29-31 state that prophets receive God's revelation so that all may learn and all may be comforted. Thus, the teaching function is inherent in prophecy. That prophecy was not forbidden to women is clear from I Cor. 11:5, where women's public prophesying is presupposed and their deportment regulated. Paul was not trying to quench the Holy Spirit from speaking through women, but he wanted to ensure that women who spoke for God acted modestly in a way that could not bring legal accusations against the church.

Concerning the ministry of prophecy during the Church Age, Acts 2:17-18 states, "And it shall come to pass, in the last days, says God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." Here, Peter quotes Joel 2:28 to explain the phenomena of Pentecost. He goes on to show that in the Messianic "last days" that Jesus has inaugurated, the prophecy of Joel is fulfilled. Without respect of persons, God will pour out His Spirit upon all people, and they will speak Divine revelations. The Gospel is offered to all, and the sign of the Holy Spirit, as evidenced in speaking in tongues and prophecy, is offered freely to all who believe.

On the day of Pentecost, one hundred and twenty followers of Christ were filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in languages they had never learned, publicly proclaiming "the wonderful works of God." According to Acts 1:14, these one hundred and twenty Holy Spirit-inspired preachers included both men and women. Their speech was not just ecstatic praise, although that would be wonderful enough, but inspired preaching which listeners understood in their own languages. Its purpose and effect was the conversion to Christ of hearers from many lands and languages and their becoming unified as members of His Body, the church, the community of believers in Jesus. No doubt, the women were teaching men just as much as the men were. Thus, the prayer of Moses is fulfilled, "would God that all the Lord's people were prophets and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them." (Num. 11:29) Through the free exercise of inspired preaching in the church, God demonstrates His extravagant grace!

God is no respecter of persons. There had always been women prophets in Israel. Miriam, who by her faith and courage saved her baby brother Moses from death when she was just a child, prophesied to the nation and was set before them as a leader by God Himself along with Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4).

Deborah-- prophetess, judge and military leader-- is the most celebrated woman prophet of the Old Testament because she brought liberty to Israel through her faith, courage and boldness. Judges 4:4 is generally translated as "Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lapidoth. . ." but the Hebrew word here translated "wife" usually means "woman," and Lapidoth is not attested elsewhere as a man's name. Rather, it is the ordinary feminine plural for the word "fire." As her career demonstrates, Deborah was a fiery woman! The Hebrew is emphatic that SHE judged Israel at that time. Respecting her as a wise woman who heard from God and knew His Law, the people of Israel came to her for judgment. When the word of the Lord came to Deborah, she summoned Barak from Naphtali and directed him to obey God by mustering troops against the oppressor Sisera. When Barak agreed to do so only if Deborah accompanied him, she did not hesitate to go and rally the troops.

After the victory, in the ode of celebration, Deborah sings, "The villages ceased, they ceased in Israel until I, Deborah, arose, until I arose a mother in Israel." Deborah heard the word of the Lord and was obedient to God's call. In response to that call, not human invitation, Deborah rose up to lead her nation, inspiring others to follow her faith. Because of her courage and fear of God, not man, the nation was set free and enjoyed peace for forty years. Just as men can bespiritual fathers in the church, she was a spiritual mother in Israel.

The prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:14) taught at the college in Jerusalem and brought revival to the nation when she confirmed the Word of God brought to her and prophesied judgment and grace to King Josiah, the high priest, and the religious elite of her day. These men received and acted upon her declaration as it was, the word of God, not a human. Note that this occurred during the ministry of Jeremiah, who had been prophesying at Jerusalem for five years by the time the Lord used Huldah to speak His message. God wasn't out of men to use! He deliberately chose to use this woman. According to the original edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The standing and reputation of Huldah in the city are attested by the fact that she was consulted when the Book of the Law was discovered. The king, high priest, counselors, etc. appealed to her rather than to Jeremiah, and her word was accepted by all of the word of Jehovah." ("Huldah" by J. J. Reeve, ISBE, Vol. III, Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915, p. 1389)

New Testament prophetesses include Anna (Luke 2:36-38), the first to proclaim Jesus as the Redeemer publicly; Elizabeth (Luke 2:41-45), who recognized Christ while still in His mother's womb; Mary (Luke 2:46-55), who through faith conceived God in the flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit; and Phillip's virgin daughters. (Acts 21:8-9)

So we can see clear examples of God using women to teach men, and it really would be gender discriminization if he didn't. Any takers?
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank Daley for proposing this debate and welcome him to the DDO community.

A few words prior to the onset of my argument.

The resolution states "The Bible Teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church." This needs to be clarified prior to starting, that this is not a debate about if women can be leaders in business, can teach college courses that include men, or can be the heads of households. To be very strict, this is not even a debate about if women can teach men in the Church... it's about if the Bible teaches that. (I would argue that if the Bible teaches it, that is the way it should be in the Church... but that is a different debate.) How this impacts our debate is the following: Examples of successful women in executive ministry positions in modern day, or historical, Churches have no bearing on the resolution. Just because something pragmatically works, does not mean that is what the Bible teaches. I call this to light, because I do not want my opponent to waste his text arguing from that angle, because it is easily defeated by appealing to the resolution.

Furthermore, as Pro and Instigator, my opponent as the burden of proof in this debate. That means, that he needs to prove beyond any reasonable objection that the Bible affirmatively teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church. In order to refute this, Con must only show that the Bible does not affirmatively teach that and need not show that it teaches the contrary. However, to be complete in my argument, I will in fact show that the Bible does teach that Women should not teach men in the Church.

On to the Argument. To begin, I will summarize my opponent's arguments and proceed to dismantle them.

Point A) God is Fair. Gender Discrimination is not fair, therefore God cannot practice gender discrimination.
Point B) 1st Corinthians exhorts women to practice prophecy. This means that the prohibitions against women teaching are cultural in other epistles. This point is supported by Acts when it says "your sons and daughters shall prophesy."
Point C) There are female Prophets in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. If we see examples of women teaching in the Bible, that means the Bible teaches that women can teach.

Rebuttal to Point A) No where in Scripture does a passage teach that God is fair. The entire book of Job deals with this question. A man whom God Himself describes as Without Blame has his children killed, his property taken away, and his very health stricken from him... simply to prove that he is indeed blameless. This certainly does not seem fair. Near the end of the book when God confronts Job and Job asks "Why me God?" we do not see a gentle nudge toward fairness or an apology from God. God simply responds "I'm God, who are you to question me? Furthermore, we see God choosing one person over the other, or one nation over the other, for no reason other than he chose that person. Why was Moses spared and the infant down the road thrown in the river? Why was Israel chosen at the cost of the Canaanite inhabitants of the Promised land? Scripture teaches that God is Just, but never that he is fair. In fact the entire point of the New Testament is that God gives humans who trust in Jesus something they do not deserve, rather he gives them eternal life as opposed to eternal condemnation. Beyond that, my opponent has not proved that allowing a man to teach and not a woman is a violation of fairness.

Point B) My opponent has assumed something that the text does not state. The passage simply says everyone. My opponent has made the mistake of assuming that this means everyone should prophesy, rather than reading it for what it says as "everyone who prophesies." It is not saying that everyone should prophesy, rather it is saying that the person who does prophesy speaks to men for their strengthening. To assume that this means women are prophesying is to read into the text something that is not there. Furthermore, my opponent fails to see that the scriptures do not use the terms prophecy and teaching interchangeably and assumes that if a woman prophesies that she is teaching. This is not the case. In Scripture, Prophesy refers to a unique event in which a person is given direct revelation by God to share with a group or specific person. Teaching however, refers specifically to a general event in which a person shares doctrinal statements (usually from the Scriptures) in order to edify the Church. They are not the same, and I would challenge my opponent to show me any instance in the Scripture of a woman teaching anyone, especially a man. There is a further objective I will elucidate in my affirmative argument later.

Rebuttal to Point C) Please see above comments on the difference between prophecy and teaching. Furthermore, just because the Bible shows us examples of something, does not mean that it is teaching us to do so. There are passages that are DESCRIPtive and DESCRIBE how things were, and there are passages that are PRESCRIPtive and PRESCRIBE how things should be. Historical documents like Genesis-Ruth, the Gospels and Acts are generally descriptive and not prescriptive. Otherwise my opponent would also be arguing that Christians should be communistic (Acts 2) or that we should slaughter non-Christians and take their land (Joshua).

Affirmative Argument) In 1st Timothy, Chapter 2 Paul makes an explicit statement.

"[A] I desire then that in every place the [B] men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that [C] women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. [D] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [F] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [G] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the [H] woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (ESV, Vs 8-13, Xrefs mine.)

A few specific comments, please see the in text Xrefs that correspond with my argument. [A] Paul states that in every place men should pray. The word used here is a gender specific word that means [B] Male (Gk = Aner) as opposed to the gender non-specific Mankind (Gk = Anthropos). He s specifically referring to the Males in the congregation when he exhorts them to pray. He then says "Likewise" and gives the [C] women, again gender specific Female (Gk = Guney), directions. The "Likewise" means "in the same way" so he is saying that the instructions he gives the Women is equivalent to the instructions he give the men. So where Men pray without anger or quarrel, women should adorn themselves modestly. These two different actions accomplish the same result in Paul's mind.

He then says [D] "Let the women learn quietly" and explains [F] "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." Now, many make the argument that this is a cultural restriction for the church in Ephesus because of the Temple of Venus... however, Paul makes the argument from a universal (a least in his mind) circumstance that applies to all people. He says that women should not teach or exercise authority over a man because of the [G] order of creation and the fact that it was [H] Eve who was deceived. All women everywhere are part of the created order and affected by Adam and Eve's transgression in the same way. Paul is saying [G] "Because women were created second, they should not teach over a man." He is also saying [H] "because the woman was deceived, women should not teach over man." Paul explicitly roots his argument in a circumstance that is NOT cultural, because he is making an argument that is NOT cultural.

That will be enough for now, I think. I look forward to reading my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
daley

Pro

"Rebuttal to Point A) No where in Scripture does a passage teach that God is fair."

Rom 2:11 NIV "For God does not show favoritism"
Acts 10:34 NIV "God does not show favoritism." Other translations read:
"God is not partial." (NWT)

God judges individuals and deals with them according to their true nature -- what is in their hearts -- and not according to superficial characteristics like race, looks, nationality etc. (Acts 10:34)

Con argues that how God dealt with Job was not fair, but it was, not God, but the Devil who did all the wicked things to Job that my opponent mentions. Also, we can't say that it isn't fair for God to allow suffering unless his reason's for allowing it are not justified.

He points to God's special treatment of Israel and claims that he exhibited partiality. It is true that that nation received special privileges that others didn't. But is that the true definition of partiality -- just receiving special privileges? No. Partiality is when special treatment is given without just merit. Looking at the big picture, ancient Israel was singled out by God for special treatment, when he singled out Abraham. Why was Abraham singled out? Because of his obedient and faithful heart. So it was Abraham's outstanding faith and obedience that moved God to choose him and constitute a nation from his offspring -- Israel. Even so, God's purpose in choosing Abraham and the nation of Israel was with the eternal benefit of ALL obedient mankind in view. (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 22:15-18)

While God extended special treatment to the nation of Israel, he also chastised them when they demonstrated a rebellious attitude. So while God will extend special favor to the obedient, he will also remove such favor and punish them if they turn around and become rebellious. Likewise, a formerly rebellious individual can turn around from his rebellion and receive divine favor. (Ezekiel 18:21-32) There are also examples of God impartially extending favor to non-Israelites of nations that were judged by him as worthy of destruction. Mathew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31)

God impartially shows favor to the obedient, and wrath to the wicked. He extends mercy to both the wicked and righteous (for no man is perfectly righteous). He impartially welcomes the wicked man if he turns around from his wickedness and he rejects the righteous one if he turns to a wicked course. Jehovah is the one that judges us and deals with us impartially according to what we truly are in our hearts.

"Beyond that, my opponent has not proved that allowing a man to teach and not a woman is a violation of fairness."

Fairness by definition has to do with equal rights and opportunities. Wikipedia: "Fairness or being fair may refer to:
•Equity (law)
•Distributive justice
•Fairness, absence of bias in specific realms:"

It is not giving equal opportunity and rights to women if men can teach in the church and they can't. While you trust to make a distinction between God being just, and his being fair, his justice really is his fairness. A just God is a fair God.

"My opponent has assumed something that the text does not state. The passage simply says everyone. My opponent has made the mistake of assuming that this means everyone should prophesy, rather than reading it for what it says as "everyone who prophesies."

Con misunderstands my argument. My argument was not that 1 Cor 14:3-5 says everyone should prophesy, but it does tell us that EVERYONE who DOES prophesy speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" and "builds up the church." So everyone who prophesies speaks to MEN. Therefore, if women do prophesy, then they do speak to men for their building up, strengthening, and encouragement. EVERYONE who prophesies does so "so that all (including MEN) may learn and all may be comforted. Thus, the teaching function is inherent in prophecy." (vss 29-31) So if women do prophesy, that involves their teaching men because EVERYONE who prophesies teaches men. And I have shown you where in both the Old and New Testament that women prophesy.

"Furthermore, my opponent fails to see that the scriptures do not use the terms prophecy and teaching interchangeably and assumes that if a woman prophesies that she is teaching."

1 Cor 14:29-31 clearly says that when prophets prophesy it is so that "ALL (doesn't ALL include MEN?) may LEARN." So unless you can prove that women are not prophets (that they are not allowed to prophesy) then you can't rule out women teaching men.

"Teaching however, refers specifically to a general event in which a person shares doctrinal statements (usually from the Scriptures) in order to edify the Church."

Women were among the 120 disciples who taught men about the magnificent things of God in Acts 2:4-5, 11; 1:13-15. My opponent is saying that someone has to use the Bible in order for it to be teaching. If this is the case then there could be no teaching among God's people before the Bible was written. Also, it doesn't say that these 20 disciples made no reference to God's word while speaking about the magnificent things of God. One would suppose many of the main magnificent things of God are recorded in Scripture.

"Please see above comments on the difference between prophecy and teaching. Furthermore, just because the Bible shows us examples of something, does not mean that it is teaching us to do so."

Here is what the Bible tells us to do. "Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them…TEACHING them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20) I ask my opponent, does this only apply to men? If so, then only men can make disciples. If it includes women, then women can teach men. If he claims this is not in the church setting, I will have to challenge him that the church is not a building, but the people; and if a woman teaches her male children who are saved, she is teaching male members of the church. If she gives counsel to new male believers, she is teaching members of the church. Will he argue that all of this is forbidden?

1 Timothy Chapter 2:8-13 must be understood in the same spirit as verse 9. Is it wrong for women to wear expensive clothes? How much money must a dress cost to qualify as expensive? Is it wrong for a woman to wear jewelry? Many of God' people in the Bible did without condemnation. So verses 8-13 can be taken with the same sense of modesty as verse 9. Further, this passage says nothing about an assembly for worship, so my opponent has not proven that Paul was here discussing matters of the congregation and not some other circumstance.

"He then says [D] "Let the women learn quietly" and explains [F] "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man."

Philippians 4:2-3 says otherwise. Women were allowed to teach. (Rom 16:1) Also, because a woman is teaching you does not mean she is exercising authority over you. A humble person is willing to listen even to a small child and learn from him; doesn't mean the child is exercising authority over you. God told Abraham to obey his wife's voice, doesn't mean she had authority over him. (Gen 21:9-12) So he needs to look at how he interprets 1 Tim 2.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent has responded in a vigorous and thorough way. I would like to thank him for the time put into this argument.

Response to Point A) The word in question in both Romans 2:11 an Acts 10:34 is Prosopolempsai. This is a fusion of two words, Prosopon meaning Face, and Lambano meaning I take or receive. Literally, the authors are saying "God does not take people at face value." This is an idiomatic expression that, according to Thayer's Lexicon [A], means "the fault of one who when called on to requite or to give judgement has respect to the outward circumstances of men and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is right, high-born, or powerful, to another who is destitute to such gifts." If you look at the context of Romans 2, Paul is talking to people who judge other people. In Rome, which was obsessed with wealth and status, it is clear that he is condemning people for judging people for using the criterion mentioned by Thayer. He is then contrasting God, who does not use those criterion. In Acts 10:34, Peter is discussing the difference between Jew and Gentile. He is referring salvation when he is discussing partiality and God's lack of it. You cannot apply this lack of Partiality in reference to salvation across the board to a lack of partiality in all things. This is poor exegesis. In Romans, we see God does not show partiality in references to wealth, power, or class. In Acts we see that he does not show partiality in reference to salvation. However, no where do we see that God does not show partiality in reference to calling.

My opponent claims that since it was not God who afflicted Job, and rather the Devil... that it was not God's "fault." This is ridiculous. If God allows bad things to happen, it is according to his will. He may have a reason to allow it, but it is still according to his will. Furthermore my opponent claims that we cannot call God's actions unfair if they are justified. The only justification that God gives to Job, who God himself held up as an example of blamelessness, is "I'm God, and I wanted to."

My opponent claims that the special treatment of Israel was justified because of the faithfulness of Abraham. However, what justifies the special treatment of Abraham? God did not wait for Abraham to be faithful to extend the call... to argue this goes against the very Christian Gospel. God chose Abraham simply because he chose Abraham. Abraham responded in faithfulness, but it was the call that precipitated the faith not the other way around.

My opponent cites Wikipedia in his definition of fairness. An actual source states that fair is an adjective that means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice."[B] As my opponent said in his reference to Job, we cannot call something unfair unless God is not justified in doing so. Paul presents a legitimate argument for why women should not teach executively over men, so God has a justified position that is neither biased, dishonest, or unjust.

Response to Point B) My opponent is making the argument that because people learn, by definition someone has taught. He therefore asserts that since women are allowed to prophesy in 1 Corinthians, that they are allowed to teach. However, there is a significant problem with his premise. Learning does not require teaching. There are many ways to learn that do not include teaching. Most children learn to talk without their parents explicitly teaching them. If I watch a person juggle, I can learn how to do that. In the same way, a prophet is speaking the message God gave them, it is not an explicit form of teaching. The two words are different. Prophesy is "to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict." [C] Teach is "hold a discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver a didactic discourse." [D] The two are different. Simply put, Paul allows women to prophesy but not to teach.

My opponent claims that "Women were among the 120 disciples who taught men about the magnificent things of God in Acts 2:4-5, 11; 1:13-15. However, Acts 1:13-15 does not reference anyone teaching besides Peter. The passage says that Peter addressed the group (and comments on how large the group was). It is not saying that all 120 people taught, rather it is saying that Peter taught 120 people. Acts 2:4-5 is a reference to the group being inspired by the Holy Spirit who "gave them utterances." This appears to fit the definition of prophesying, in that they "speak forth by divine inspiration" in these utterances. There is no didactic discourse occurring in this passage.

My opponent also references the Great Commission. However, he fails to include the audience to which Jesus spoke. In vs 28:16 we see that "the eleven disciples went to Galilee... and Jesus came and said to them..." The instruction to teach was not given to a group of mixed women and men. It was given to the eleven remaining disciples, who were all men. Is this a general instruction for all people, that is one possible interpretation. Another is that this was a distinct instruction given to the Disciples. The Bible does not EXPLICITLY teach here that women should teach over men. Furthermore, even if this is a general instruction for the whole Church, that do not mean that women should teach over men. Women may teach over other women and other children without violating Paul's prohibition of women teaching men, and still be a part of fulfilling this call.

Response to Rebuttal against my affirmative point)

My opponent has failed to explain why Paul uses a universal circumstances (the created order) to describe something that only applies in Ephesus. Until he responds to this point, we must concede that Paul is drawing his theology from a universal circumstance, and therefore it is a universal dictate.

He attempts to show cases of women teaching in the Church by lifting up a woman named Euodia (Philipi) and a woman named Phoebe (Cenchreae), however what he fails to note is that those passages do not reference those two teaching. Most of the time when Paul references a specific believer he is writing to them because the Church meets in their home. That doesn't mean they are teaching, it simply means that the Church is meeting in their home. Phoebe is specifically called a Deaconess. Even today, Deacons rarely teach. This word comes from diakonos, which means someone who serves another person. In ancient Greek it meant someone who was a servant or a waiting-man. In fact, in Romans 16:2 Paul gives a more lengthy description of who Phoebe was he say "she has been a patron of many and of myself as well." This more likely means she financially supported others who were teaching, rather than teaching herself. Regardless, the two examples that Pro has given do not show example of women teaching. They are simple persons in the Church who served others. (We know next to nothing about Euodia... she is simply mentioned by Paul)

As you can see reading my argument, Pro's argument is based three things.
A) A faulty understanding of the "fairness of God" based on an incorrect understanding of the word "prosopolempsai" meaning "Respecter of persons." God is not partial in terms of salvation or sin, but that does not extend anywhere in scripture to vocation.
B) A faulty association between the role of a prophet in prophesying (not limited to males) and a teacher in teaching (limited exclusively to males).
C) A faulty assumption that just because Paul mentions someone, it means that they are teaching. We know nothing about Euodia, and Phoebe is not identified as a teacher. She is identified as a patron and deaconess.

Thank you for reading.

[A] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
[B] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[C] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
[D] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 2
daley

Pro

The Bible records it was women who taught the male apostles that Jesus' prophetic word was fulfilled in his resurrection, but the apostles would not believe at first. (Luke 24:5-11)

He keeps asking for an example of a woman teaching a man in the Bible. Here is one (Acts 18:24-26); Aquilla and his wife Prisdilla (Acts 18:2) both expounded (teached) the way of God more correctly to Apollos; so not only the man, but the woman also was teaching.

"An actual source states that fair is an adjective that means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice."

So my opponent here is admitting that "fair" means free 'from injustice,' which means ‘to be just.' Someone who is free from injustice is just. Yet, in his first post he said:

"Scripture teaches that God is Just, but never that he is fair."

I will ask my opponent to clarify this for me. In his first post he claims God is just but not fair, and in his second post he defines "fair" as "just," that is - "free from injustice." So which is it? If fairness means "free from injustice," then God being "just" would also have to be fair. You admitted that Scripture teaches that God is just, and since fairness is free from injustice, this tells me you have admitted that God is fair. So have you abandoned your argument that God is not fair? If not, what on earth could "free from injustice" mean except to be "just"? It is clear even from Con's own source that fairness means to be just; and since he admits God is just, then God is fair.

". In Acts we see that he does not show partiality in reference to salvation. However, no where do we see that God does not show partiality in reference to calling."

So my opponent is arguing that God is unfair. He worships an unfair God. He claims that God is partial in reference to calling. If that is so, why preach to all nations instead of some? (Matt 24:14)

He claims that because God allows bad things to happen that it must be according to his will. But Scripture shows it is God's will for none to be destroyed, but for all men to be saved (2 Pet 3:9). The fact that some will be destroyed does not mean it is God's will that it should be so, but rather, that the choices the wicked make leave God no option but to do what he never likes to do, destroy people. (Eze 18:23) Not everything that happens is God's will.

"If God allows bad things to happen, it is according to his will."

So the holocaust was God's will? Homosexuality is God's will? Rape is God's will? WWI was God's will? Sin is God's will? God told Adam not to eat of the tree, how then could his eating of it be God's will? Did God desire him to both eat it, and to not eat of it? The fact that God allowed him to eat the fruit and to set in motion all the horrible things that occurred in human history is no evidence that God willed it to be so! God's will is that we use our free will to obey him, not to disobey him. If I don't accept your position in this debate, is that God's will to? If everything that happens is the will of God, then murderers and rapists should be commended for doing God's will!

"Furthermore my opponent claims that we cannot call God's actions unfair if they are justified. The only justification that God gives to Job, who God himself held up as an example of blamelessness, is "I'm God, and I wanted to."

God showed Job that his knowledge and ways is so vastly superior (Job 38) that we can trust that he is always doing the best thing even when we don't know his reasons. Also, the fact that he has not given us a reason for something doesn't mean that he is not justified in his actions. We can only say he is not justified if (1) we know his reasons, and (2) we have good reason to reject the reasons given as inadequate. Since my opponent doesn't know God's reasons for allowing suffering, he cannot say that his allowing suffering is unfair. What is more is that Job was rewarded with more than he had before, and will have eternal benefits to come, and this indeed justifies anything he experienced. The things to come are worth suffering for. (Rom 8:18; Job 42:10-17) God doesn't cause unnecessary suffering, and he rewards us beyond what we suffer. I don't see any unfairness in this.

The fact that my opponent was driven to the extreme of arguing that God is not fair to prove his point tells me that deep down he knows that givin men the opportunity to teach in church and not women is unfair. It is gender discrimination.

In 1Corinthians 11:4 notice that Paul jumps right in about the "head covering" and says, "Every man (this means male in the Greek) praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonors his head." But then in verse 5 he says, "But EVERY WOMAN (FEMALE) that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head..." NOTICE THAT THE WOMEN ARE PRAYING AND PROPHESYING! The whole section of 1Corinthians 11:1-16 is to establish that ladies (in their culture) when they pray or prophesy in church need to have their heads covered, NOT that they can't pray or prophesy at all! This shows that women should not "keep silent" in the Church at all! Paul was responding to what was happening in the church, ilcluding false teachings that crept in.

While Paul wrote his response (our Scriptures of 1Corinthians) BACK to the Corinthian church, he previously and thoroughly read THEIR LETTER that they sent to him ─ 1Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning things whereof YOU WROTE UNTO ME...." In fact, he wrote down parts of their letter back to them and rebuked them for their foolish teachings.

Paul established through his entire letter and particularly in chapters 11 thru 14 that there is no difference between a male and female being appointed and/or receiving the gifts, callings and offices of Christ. Before he wrote down their "foolish scripture" that they wrote to him, he wrote this preface: "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1Corinthians 14:33). Then in verses 34-35 he repeated what they first wrote to him: "Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says 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."

Immediately after Paul wrote this, the next word he wrote was, "WHAT?" (v36). In the Greek, the word "what" is a negative disclaimer. We would say, "What, are you nuts?" Paul said, "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or did it come unto you only?" (v36). Meaning, that the previous statement that he wrote from the letter he received from them referring that women are to keep silent in the church was not from God at all. In fact, it was pure silliness. He just got done writing in a few paragraphs previous to this what we now know as 1Corinthians 11:1-16, establishing that when women prophesy or pray in the church they are to have their heads covered. "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered…." needs to put on her head covering and then it would be acceptable (1Corinthians 11:5). Praying and prophesying involves "speaking," so it is obvious Paul was refuting this idea that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

2 Tim 2:9-15 does not mention a gathering for worship and is probably discussing matters in the family setting where we know a husband is head of his wife, therefore he would be the one teaching the family. Note the reference to childbearing in verse 15 is not a church matter but a private family matter. Also, Paul was not saying a woman could not teach a man anymore than he was saying she couldn't wear jewelry or braids (vs 9). His main emphasis was that she display modesty in these areas and not overdo.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent seems to have abandoned the idea of an organized argument. I will try to keep the thoughts as organized as possible.

"The Bible records it was women who taught the male apostles that Jesus' prophetic word was fulfilled in his resurrection, but the apostles would not believe at first." - The passage in question simply records the women reporting a fact. This does not constitute teaching. When I watch the news to hear that the US has participated in an attack on Libya, the news did not teach me anything... they simply reported a fact.

My opponent brings up the account of Aquilla and his wife Priscilla expounding something to Apollos. This is an example of a descriptive passage. The bible has reported that a woman once taught a man... however this does not constitute TEACHING. This is again simply describing an event... there are several events in the Bible that are recorded that we should not emulate (David murdering Uriah to steal his wife, whom he had already committed adultery with.) When we have a descriptive account of someone doing something, and than a prescriptive passage that says the otherwise we can come to one of two conclusions. The first is that Paul was wrong in his prescriptive passage, or that the person acting in the descriptive passage was acting incorrectly. If we dismiss Paul's prescriptive passages... we have a big problem. Beyond that, this passage states that Aquilla and Priscilla taught together. This does not constitute a case of a woman teaching executively over a man.

My opponent then launches into a lengthy discussion of the semantics of fairness vs justice. He tries to claim that because fairness includes "lack of injustice" in its definition, that justice and fairness are synonyms. This is a faulty association. Lets look at an analogy. Lets construct a definition of "dog" that follows the same pattern.

Dog: A carnivorous mammal of the Genus Canis and Species Lupus, with the subspecies Familiaris. Free from two leggedness.

In this example, if we follow Pro's logic... "free of two leggedness" is synonymous with dog (Fair = free of injustice). However, there are many things that are free of two leggedness that are not dogs. Cats, Cows, Insects, Arachnids, Worms, Snakes... Furthermore... this is not even a function of using apaphatic definitions (Defining something by wht it is not). There are many Carnivorous Mammals that are not dogs (Large Cats, Otters, Orcas, etc) and there are even many animals that are of the Genus Canis and Species Lupus that are not dogs (Wolves, Dingos, etc). Just like something can be a non-two legged member of the Genus/Species Canis/Lupus and not be a dog... something can be "free from injustice" and not be "fair."

My opponent then goes into a large discourse about the will of God... which is irrelevant to this topic. My opponent appealed to the "fairness" of God... which I have shown is not an attribute that is given to God in reference to vocation. However, I shall respond to the discourse since I have space...

God has multiple types of wills. At a high level, a sovereign God demonstrates a Providential Will (Causing things to happen) and a Permissive Will (Allowing things to happen). However, if he could stop an event like the holocaust and didn't... he allowed it to happen (Permissive Will). If he could not stop it from happening, we would say it happened against his will... so if he could but didn't, we say it happened according to his will. Also, there is something called the "Moral Will of God" which is used to refer to what God finds morally acceptable. There are many examples in scripture of God Providentially or Permissively ordaining thing that are contrary to his moral will... The Crucifixion of the only innocent man in history is one, the killing of women and children in the Judges and Joshua Narrative is another.

My opponent then argues that "God showed Job that his knowledge and ways are so vastly superior that we can trust that he is always doing the best thing even when we don't know his reasons." Does this line of reasoning not apply to him selecting men to teach rather than women. Perhaps God has "knowledge and ways" that are "vastly superior" that prove that this is the just and fair order of things... you need to be consistent in your application. If Job couldn't question the fairness of God... why can you?

He then moves on to discuss praying and prophesying in 1st Corinthians... I have already shown that Prayer and Prophecy are not the same as teaching. I am not contesting that women can pray or prophesy, I am contesting that they can teach over a man.

I'm not sure of the point Pro is trying to make with his discussion of the word "What" in 1 Cor 14:36. Furthermore, I'm also not sure where he got the translation that says What. I see it in the KJV... but the actual word in question is "h" (Greek Eta, with a rough breathing mark and an accent) which means "or" and is a "disjunctive conjunction. Used to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other."[A] What Paul is teaching in the rest of the passage (vs 26-40) is that the Church is supposed to teach according to the principles that God has ordained. He describes this order thusly (vs 35) "If there is anything [the women who are to keep silent in the churches] desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." He then uses "or" as a way to set up a rhetorical dichotomy and says "Or did the Word of God come from you." Rather than "What, are you nuts?" Which is completely unfounded in its comparison... we might have a boss say "This is the way we are going to run this department, or do you think you are in charge?" This sets up one side of the premise as true and one side as false (typically the second half), in this case we see that the first half, teaching in an orderly manner with the women remaining silent is the true half of the dichotomy, while "does the word of God come from you" is the false side.

Finally, Pro says "2 Tim 2:9-15 does not mention a gathering for worship and is probably discussing matters in the family setting where we know a husband is head of his wife, therefore he would be the one teaching the family." I didn't realize that "probably" was a valid debating tactic. However, the entire letter of 1st Timothy is written to a pastor of a church, and the entire content of the letter is about educating Timothy how to correctly run a Church. Beyond that... we don't have to guess at what Paul means... he says it flat out. "I do not permit a woman to teach over a man" and supports his assertion with a circumstance that is universal to all men and all women, the created order. My opponent has still not shown why Paul would appeal to a universal circumstance to make a localized command. Furthermore, Paul does not need to appeal to any authority. In Philemon, he has the authority to simply command if he desires (1:8). He could have exercised this in Timothy's case. Also, when an author (Paul or anyone else) gives us an explicit reason for a statement, it is disrespectful to undermine that and create another reason. Paul could have easily said "Timothy, I don't let women teach because it would make us look silly to the world." or "Timothy, the Temple of Aphrodite in Ephesus has connected women teachers to some gnarly stuff, and we don't want that image." But he didn't, he said "Timothy, man was created before woman and the woman was deceived, not the man... I don't want them teaching because of that."

Thank you for your rigorous debate, I look forward to the next round.

[A] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 3
daley

Pro

Paul wrote to all the Christians in Colossae (Col 1:2) including women, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; TEACHING and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." (Col 3:16) All members of the body of Christ are told to TEACH one another. "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." (Gal 3:28)

Regarding Luke 24:4-11 my opponent says "The passage in question simply records the women reporting a fact. This does not constitute teaching." It doesn't occur to him that these women were preaching about the resurrection. Mirriam Webster's Dictionary defines "teach" as "to cause to know something…to impart the knowledge…to make known and accepted." These women's aim was to cause the disciples to know that Jesus was resurrected, to impart the knowledge of the resurrection, to make it known to them. It was teaching. Wikipedia defines it as "Imparting knowledge by a teacher or other person (verb)."

"My opponent brings up the account of Aquilla and his wife Priscilla expounding something to Apollos. This is an example of a descriptive passage. The bible has reported that a woman once TAUGHT a man... however this does not constitute TEACHING."

How could a woman TEACHING a man not constitute TEACHING? She TAUGHT him, but it wasn't really TEACHING!?!? I'll let the readers of this debate decide what to think about that.

"This is again simply describing an event... there are several events in the Bible that are recorded that we should not emulate (David murdering Uriah to steal his wife, whom he had already committed adultery with.)"

The Bible records that David repented for what he did, doesn't record that Priscilla repented; the Bible says David was reproved by the prophet Nathan and chastised by God for what he did with Bathsheba, no such condemnation or punishment is recorded regarding Priscilla and Aquallia TEACHING Apollos. Further, the tone of Acts 18:24-28 is positive throughout with no hint that this was a bad example. So I don't think David's case is anywhere parallel to this one.

"Beyond that, this passage states that Aquilla and Priscilla taught together. This does not constitute a case of a woman teaching executively over a man."

This means they BOTH taught. So not only was the man teaching, so was the woman.

My opponent argues that God is unfair. His source defined fair as "an adjective that means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." So by arguing that God is not fair he is saying that God is biased, dishonest, or unjust. Which is it? By your own definition, if God is unbiased, honest and just, then God is fair, and no amount of "two-legged dog" illustrations can rebut that!

"However, if he could stop an event like the holocaust and didn't... he allowed it to happen (Permissive Will). If he COULD NOT STOP IT from happening, we would say it happened against his will... so if he could but didn't, we say it happened according to his will."

My opponent has again by driven to extreme measures just to refute my argument. Now he argues there are things that an all powerful, all-knowing God COULD NOT STOP from happening! If God didn't know how to stop the holocaust then his knowledge was limited, if he wasn't powerful enough to stop it then his power was limited; since he had both the knowhow and power to stop it, its clear that he could have prevented it.

My opponent claims that if he could stop it but chose not to, then it happened according to his will. God's will is his desire. (Rom 12:2) I showed Con that God's will is for all to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 says "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Now my opponent argues that if God allows people to choose not to repent, that it is according to his will, but 2 Peter 3:9 clearly says this is not his will. Con also claims that God has different types of wills, but the Bible never mentions such distinctions; these distinctions are created by my opponent, not Scripture. The Bible only speaks of "God's will," that is, what he wants! If something is against what God want then it isn't his will! Period!

"Also, there is something called the "Moral Will of God" which is used to refer to what God finds morally acceptable."

Everything God commands is what he wills, and everything God wills is morally acceptable. The distinction Con is trying to create exists only in his imagination, not in Scripture. What does "moral" mean? "MORAL: adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes." (Dictionary.com)

All that God commands is right, obeying any of his commands is right conduct, disobeying him is wrong conduct. There is no division in his wills so that some are moral and not others.

"There are many examples in scripture of God Providentially or Permissively ordaining thing that are contrary to his moral will... The Crucifixion of the only innocent man in history is one, the killing of women and children in the Judges and Joshua Narrative is another."

God never ordained anything that was contrary to his will. God never ordained the killing of innocent women and children, they deserved to die according to God's judgment. When killing was done unjustly God didn't support it. Jesus dying to save us was not contrary to God's moral will, and I challenge my opponent to show us where the Bible says that it was.

"If Job couldn't question the fairness of God... why can you?"

Con is mixing apples and oranges here. God was not doing anything bad to Job, God was not at fault for his suffering. (James 1:13) But my opponent is saying God is at fault for why women can't teach in church. This makes him guilty of gender discrimination. Also, remember I said that we can only say God is unfair if we know his reasons and his reasons are not adequate. My opponent give two inadequate reasons why women can't teach men. (1) the man was not deceived but the woman was; now I don't believe women can't teach men, but assuming Con is right and they can't, this isn't a good reason because (a) Adam did even worse than Eve; she was tricked, but he DELIBEARTELY ate the fruit knowing what was involved, (b) the Bible blames the man, not the woman, for sin entering into the world (Rom 5:12), and (c) Satan has deceive the whole world of both men and women (Rev 12:9), so men are no better than women so that women are easily deceived and they aren't. His second reason is (2) the man was formed first. What does that have to do with teaching? Are not all humans made in the image of God?

"He then moves on to discuss praying and prophesying in 1st Corinthians... I have already shown that Prayer and Prophecy are not the same as teaching. I am not contesting that women can pray or prophesy, I am contesting that they can teach over a man."

So if they can pray and prophesy in church, they certainly are not supposed to "keep silent," for how could they be silent while praying and prophesying? The church has to hear them prophesy in order to receive edification. (1 Cor 14:3-4) This shows that the passage about women being silent and not permitting them to speak is not Paul's instruction, but the false teaching he was responding to. This is why he said, "What? Came the word of God out from you?" (1 Cor 14:36)

2 Tim 2:9-15 does mention a universal circumstance, but one about the family, not about the church. Adam was Eve's husband, her head in the family; nothing here about the church. It even mentions her being kept safe through childbearing; what has that to do with a church service? This is the most challenging debate I've had on DDO since I joined. I thank my opponent for his intriguing arguments. I'll think on them long after this debate.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent argues that if Christians are teaching one another that it necessarily means that women are teaching men. If a woman teaches another woman, are they not teaching one another?

My opponent quotes Galatians 3:28, again... this is in the context of salvation. We do not suddenly become amorphous non-gendered beings. The fact that there is specific instruction for men and women (separately) shows that Paul still viewed a difference between men and women. Rather, Paul is saying that "in Christ" (in reference to salvation) there is no male or female.

My opponent seems to be building his definition of "teach" off current definitions. However, we must respect the definitions that were being used at the time of writing. "Teach" comes from the Greek word "Didasko" which means "to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses"[A] If a person walks up to you and says "The Red Socks just won the World Series" they are not delivering a didactic discourse, nor are they holding discourse in order to instruct." The passage in question in Luke simply says the women "told" them. This is the word "Lego" and is the simple act of speaking. [B]

In reference to the account of Aquilla and Priscilla, my apologies... I can see how my wording was confusing. I am not refuting that Aquilla and Priscilla taught Apollos... rather, I am saying that a Descriptive passage in Acts that shows a woman participating in teaching man (I think it is telling that the only account of a woman actually teaching a man is shown in the context of teaching along side her husband) does not constitute the Bible teaching us that women should teach man. My opponent argues that the fact that Priscilla was not reprimanded and did not repent means the Bible is authorizing her actions. However, the Bible does not say that this is an example we should follow. We do not know that she was not reprimanded... we do not know that she did not repent. Simply put, this passage does not affirmatively teach us that we should follow Priscilla's example. Luke did not intend this book to be a didactic work... rather he intended it to be a descriptive account of the early Church. In Acts 2, members of the Church sell everything they own and enter a communistic community where everyone shares everything. Does my opponent advocate that we do this? Has my opponent done this? I doubt it, this passage is descriptive only, and the passage with Priscilla is also descriptive only.

My opponent again misunderstand the meaning of a definition that uses multiple adjectives. He argues that if Fair means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice" that unfair must mean "biased, dishonest, or unjust." I'll stay away from the two-legged dog illustration... and just go with a normal dog. "Dog free from Catness, Purpleness, and Liquid-Form" This definition is true, it is valid. However, just because something is free from Catness, Purpleness, and Liquid-Form... it does not mean it is a dog. This kind of definition is telling you what Fair is not, rather than what it is. However, something can have all the same adjective describing it and not be a dog. A Rabbit for example is free from Catness, Purpleness, and Liquid-Form... but a rabbit is not a dog. Likewise, something can be "Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice..." and not be fair. If a meteor falls out of the sky and lands on my head and kills me... it is not biased, (it did not pick me out of bias) it is not dishonest, (it did not tell me it wasn't going to land on me and then do it) and it is not unjust, (there is no violation of justice in random circumstances like this). However, I think that anyone would argue that if this happened to them... it would be unfair.

In response to the discussion of wills... this is a non-sequitor. However, I will respond one last time. If God CAN stop something, but doesn't... it means he intentionally did not stop it. That means he willed not to stop it... and it happened according to his will. In 2 Peter 3:9. Here is the verse "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Now, here is where it gets tricky... I do not know why, but modern translations have used the word "you" when the Greek uses the word "us (heymas)". The passage, literally translated, is "...but is patient toward us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." We must ask "who is included in the us?" The answer is the Church. Peter is writing to believers... so the passage is saying that God is not willing that any believers should perish but that all come to repentance. This passage is NOT saying that God wants all people everywhere to be saved... because if he wants all people everywhere to be saved and they are not... God's will has been thwarted.

However, as I said... this discussion of God's will and how it plays out is off topic and I will not address it anymore. If my opponent wishes to explain why it is pertinent... then we can resume the discussion in the following round.

Again, my opponent latches onto a poor translation of 1 Corinthians 14:36 translating "hay (in Greek) as "What?" This is a poor translation. My opponent asserts that Paul was responding to a prior letter written from the Corinthians in which a false teaching that women should keep silent was espoused. This is a novel approach, however it is lacking when we consider the fact that other Pauline epistles contain clear affirmative arguments supporting this stance.

Finally, my opponent seeks to connect the teaching in 1 Tim 2:9-15 to the family. However, the letter written to Timothy is explicitly instructions on the Church. No where in the letter does Paul give instructions that are to Family Relations. The only mention of Family Relations at all is in the qualifications for Elder and Deacon. However... these are simply qualifying statements rather than instruction on how to manage a home. Cross Reference this with the letter to the Ephesians which explicitly teaches about how to run a household. He then seeks to argue that the discussion of child birth "proves" that this is about the family. However, in order for that to be true... salvation would come to women through child birth. Is this what my opponent wishes to argue? Is he arguing that a woman is saved because she gives birth to children? Of course not. Rather, the passage about "her" being "saved through child birth" refers to Eve (and consequently Adam and all of humanity) being saved by childbearing... which would eventually lead to Christ the savior. My opponent is simply incorrect in arguing that this is a teaching about family life, rather it is exactly what it appears to be... Paul does not allow women to teach over men in the Church because the man was created before the woman, and the woman was deceived in the garden. While this may not be the line of logic I would choose, it is the one that Paul does... and the one the Bible teaches. And that after all is what the debate is about, what the Bible teaches.

To conclude this round, I would like to echo my opponents statement. This debate has been challenging and highly enjoyable to participate in. I hope that the readers have enjoyed it as much as we have.

Thank you for your patience as readers, I look forward to the next round.

[A] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
[B] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 4
daley

Pro

The statements made at 1 Cor 14:34-35 are either the true doctrine Paul preached under inspiration, or the false doctrine to which he was responding. If these words are not God's commands, then they cannot stand in this debate as legitimate Biblical evidence that women cannot teach men in church. I will quote each of the statements found in this passage and show where the Bible refutes it as false doctrine:

(1)"let your women keep SILENCE in the churches,"
(2)"for it is not permitted unto them to SPEAK,"

These words are not just saying that women shouldn't teach men, these words are saying very bluntly that women are not supposed to speak in church AT ALL! It commands women to be SILENT, you are not to hear their voice. Why? Cause Adam was formed first? No. Cause the woman was deceived but Adam wasn't? No. Because women shouldn't teach men? No. What is the reason given?

(3)"for it is a SHAME for women to SPEAK in the church."

Now I sincerely hope with all my heart that Con doesn't really believe this! I hope he doesn't believe it is a SHAME for a woman's voice to be heard in the congregation. Note how the Bible disagrees with this false belief:

"Every woman that prayeth or prophesyeth…" (1 Cor 11:5) My opponent conceded that women can rightfully pray and prophesy. He said in round 3 "I am not contesting that women can pray or prophesy." 1 Cor 14:4 says "he that prphesieth edifieth the church," which means that such prophesying by women is done publicly and would require for them to both "SPEAK in the church" and to be heard.

If it were such a shame for a woman to speak in the church, why would God allow them to both pray and prophesy publicly, which requires them to disobey the command at 1 Cor 14:34-35 to keep SILENT and not to SPEAK in the church? Paul went on to say in 1 Cor 14:5 that he wanted ALL Christians there to speak in tongues but preferred that they prophesied, so he wanted ALL (including women) to prophesy, which requires SPEAKING in the church. This proves it is not a shame for a woman to speak in the church; if it were, Paul would not be saying under inspiration that he preferred it.

So Con is in fact using a false belief (that women should be seen and not heard in the body of Christ) as proof that they cannot teach men! But the false doctrine also says:

(4)"as also saith the law."

So the Corinthians in their letter to Paul (1 Cor 7:1) were claiming that the law had said this. No wonder why Paul said, "What?" He was well acquainted with the law and knew that it never said such a thing.

I challenge my opponent to find one verse in the law that commands "women [to] keep silence in the churchces," or says "it is not permitted unto them to speak." Since the law never said this, we know this is a false teaching! The falsehood continues:

(5)"And if they will learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

This is very demeaning to women; it clearly implies that if after hearing a sermon and a woman has a question, she isn't even allowed to ask the pastor elder for clarification, but has to wait till she gets home to ask her husband because she isn't allowed to utter a word while at church. What if her husband is an unbeliever? Or what if he's a new believer and doesn't know the answer to the deeper things that were discussed on that occasion? This is so unfair, so unjust, but I guess Con doesn't mind because as far as he is concerned, God is an unfair God as well !?! I urge Con to see that the passage at 1 Cor 14:34-35 is teaching something far worse than just ‘women shouldn't teach men in church,' it is saying very plainly that women shouldn't be heard in church at all! If Con disagrees with the idea of women being totally silent in church, then he disagrees with this passage and should not be using it as evidence that women should not teach men, or as evidence of any Bible teaching. This is clearly a falsehood Paul was trying to correct!

On 1 Tim 2:9-15 Con says:

"the passage about "her" being "saved through child birth" refers to Eve (and consequently Adam and all of humanity) being saved by childbearing... which would eventually lead to Christ the savior."

Notice the future tense "she SHALL be saved in chilbearing" if "they CONTINUE (meinosin) in faith." This is not worded as a historical account of how childbearing lead to salvation, but is telling what will become of women who follow the advice Paul is giving to them in 1 Tim 2:9-15.

(1)It can't refer to Adam and Eve because since they were long dead, the "IF they continue in faith" could not apply to them; Christians in Paul's day would already have made up their minds regarding whether or not Adam and Eve ever repented and were saved by Christ's blood. The "IF" could only apply to those alive in Paul's day or future generations whose final fate has not been sealed in death. Since Eve was dead there was no point saying "she SHALL be saved" as if she was still alive but sill in her sins awaiting salvation in Paul's time.

(2)It can't mean Adam and all humanity because only "SHE," the woman, is said to be saved in childbearing, not the man. Men don't bear children.

(3)Paul would not tell women or even all humanity they would be saved through childbearing which leads to the Messiah because since the Messiah had already come, any childbearing after that point would no longer have any bearing on salvation.

(4)It's impossible that women in general or all humankind leading up to Christ could be saved from sin by childbearing for the simple reason that most lineages would not lead to the Messiah anyway. So most women having children had no bearing on the Messiah, only a certain line, so this cannot be applied across the board.

Considering these points, it is clear that Paul was not speaking about salvation from sin at all. Paul was simply saying that she would be "saved," that is, "kept safe, secure" in her relationship with the man through childbearing, which would strengthen their bond provided that both of them ("THEY") "continue in faith, and love, holiness, etc."

"Finally, my opponent seeks to connect the teaching in 1 Tim 2:9-15 to the family. However, the letter written to Timothy is explicitly instructions on the Church."

Con seems to be saying that if the purpose of the letter is instruction to the church, it cannot mention anything other than that (ie, instruction on family life); this would be like saying that since 1 Tim 3 lists the qualifications to leaders in the church that it should not mention women, yet, it does mention women right in the middle of the qualifications for deacons. (1 Tim 3:11; see context vss 8-13). In this same letter he instructs on the relationship between slaves and their masters (1 Tim 6:1-2), and the love of money. (6:8-10, 17). What he needs to realize is that while Paul was giving Timothy instructions for the church, this instruction touches various aspects of their lives. What is preached from the pulpit is not always about what you do in the walls of a building for worship, but also about what you do at home, work and play. He even says,

"Cross Reference this with the letter to the Ephesians which explicitly teaches about how to run a household."

Isn't Ephesians instruction for the church just like 1Timothy? (Eph 1:1; 4:1-12)

1 Tim 2:11-15 references when Adam and Eve were formed, at that time the family, not the church, came into existence. Jesus said "upon this rock I WILL build my church" (Matt 16:18), showing that he was yet to establish the Christian church as an organized body. This church is not mentioned at 1 Tim 2:9-15, rather, the family is, the first human family where the man is head of his wife. Childbearing is not a religious practice and is a family matter.

This has been an enjoyable debate and I'm not even sure that I won. Thanks for presented the other side. Bless U
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent rightly points out that Paul is either reacting to a false teaching, or what he says is valid. However, my opponent has not shown legitimate proof that women being silent during Church is a false teaching. However, as we shall see, he has not sufficiently met burden of proof in asserting this.

My opponent points out what appears to be a logical contradiction within the text. If a woman is going to prophecy, then they should do so with their head covered. I would like to respond to this in three ways.

1) Some laws are by concession. That means that God allows it not because it is his desire, but because he realizes that it is going to happen and thus desires to give it structure. An example of this is seen in Moses's teaching on divorce. Christ, when teaching on divorce, writes that Moses taught that by concession, because the heart o the people was hard. Isn't it possible that Paul was doing the same thing here?

2) This whole portion of the letter (Ch 11-14) is about order in worship. He begins the passage by discussing the proper way for women to act during Church... he says that every wife has her husband as a head (authority), and every man has Christ as his head (authority). He again roots hi reasoning for this in the creation order (11:9-12) and appeals to nature to show the Corinthian church that this is true (Vs 14) He then goes on in the next 3 chapters to prescribe orderly worship when preaching, partaking in the Lord's Supper, when exercising charismatic gifts. However, the Church functioned differently back then, the vast majority of Church life was not done in large public gatherings under the headship of a single authority. It happened in people's homes, as they met in the streets, as they worked in the fields. That is why this is not a logical contradiction. Vs 26 says "When you come together..." Paul's prescriptive teaching that includes women being silent is for when they are a gathered Church. If a women and man were walking to market together and she felt a prophetic message coming to her, she was free to express it. However, if they were sitting in a gathered meeting, she is to remain silent.

3) My opponent continually refers to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, but fails to include vs 33. "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints," the sentence carries on into verse 34 which begins "the women should keep silent." Not only does Paul include these instructions for the gathered church, but he affirms that in all the gathered churches of Paul's day followed this same pattern.

My opponent also appeals to my own perspective when he says "I hope he doesn't believe it is a SHAME for a woman's voice to be heard in the congregation." This is a false appeal to emotion... it is irrelevant to this debate what I, my opponent, or anyone else believes... we are debating what the Bible teaches.

My opponent then takes a verse from 7 chapters earlier that is given to a TOTALLY different context... and applies it to the rest of the book. However, when we look only a few verses earlier (Vs 21) Paul actually appeals to the Law, and quotes a legitimate passage in Deuteronomy and Isaiah. Why would we jump all the way back to Chapter 7, when a passage in the same Chapter is more closely related? Instead, it is much more likely that Paul is either A) Referring to a Biblical Law that has been lost to History. Even Jesus himself makes reference to books outside of the canon from time to time (He appeals to the Wisdom of Solomon when explaining why he has authority over demons [A]). Could not Paul also be referring to an extra-canonical book or an oral tradition. Perhaps the midrash? My opponent then continues to argue from emotion when he says "This is very demeaning to women." I don't believe it is, but even if it is... we are not debating if the Bible is demeaning to women or not, we are arguing if it is teaching that women able to teach men. He also continues to ignore that the translation of "What" for the Greek word "hey" (Eta with rough breathing mark and accent) is a poor translation. It comes from the KJV translation, which has been shown to contain many inaccurate translations and uses older and less reliable manuscripts. I previously referenced Thayer's lexicon which explicitly defines this particle as a way to set up a dichotomy that is mutually exclusive (the word translates as "or"). So either Women should keep silent, or the word of God came from the Corinthians. I will not belabor this point, my opponent is simply entrenching in a faulty argument because abandoning it will dissolve the assertions based on this supposition.

My opponent makes claims about the end of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 referring to them being "protected" in their marital relationships by having children. Does he really think that Paul is encouraging women to have babies to keep their men around?

Beyond the laughable nature of this assertion, there are several problems that his methods bring up.

A) Paul is not teaching about how to have a successful marriage. He is teaching about prayer, modesty, and teaching and authority. My opponent earlier argued that it was demeaning to say that women should keep silent in the Church and that they could not teach. Is it not demeaning to say they should keep silent in the home and not teach there? This is a consistency issue. Furthermore, a woman being silent in a marriage does not lead to a healthy marriage, it leads to adultery and divorce.

B) My opponent attacks my interpretation of "she being saved through childbearing" in a few ways. I will keep my responses short, because this interpretation is not critical to my argument and I am short of space.
1) When looking for an antecedent (the word a pronoun refers to) we should look as close to the pronoun. In this case, the closest possible antecedent is "the woman (Eve)." You'll notice that "she" turns into "they." This is useful for refuting another one of Pro's points here. Most importantly, it is shifting the subject of "continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" back to the women and men referenced in vs 9-11. My opponent also states that "Christians in Paul's day would have already made up their minds regarding whether or not Adam and Eve ever repented..." This is a ridiculous and unproven (and unprovable) assertion. Christians hadn't even decide the nature of Christ or the Trinity, or what Books belonged in the Bible... why would an auxiliary fact have been decided?

2) My opponent claims the singular nature of "She" excludes the rest of humanity... however, We see that Paul uses Adam as a prototype and federal head for all of humanity when he refers to how sin entered the world (Rom 5:12-4), why not use Eve as a prototype and federal head for all of humanity in this regard?

3) He would not tell them that THEIR childbearing leads to salvation through the Messiah, but he would tell them that EVE's childbearing would. We see this because the "She" refers to "The Woman."

4) We are not talking about other women's lineage... we are talking about the "Woman"-that-"She"-refers-to's lineage, which DID lead to the Messiah.

My opponent then tries to claim that since the letter to the Ephesians teaches on Family, that 1 Timothy does also. We must recognize the differing natures of the letters. Ephesians was written to the believers in Ephesus while Timothy was written to an in individual leading the Church in Ephesus. In Ephesians he was writing to believers to tell them how to LIVE AS THE CHURCH. In Timothy, he was writing to teach Timothy how to run the Church.

I would like to thank the Readers for their endurance in reading this debate. Thank you for sticking with us through this long debate. I would also like to thank my opponent for his vigorous and passionate discourse.

[A] http://forum.bible-discussion.com...
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I came across these two perspectives:

CON: "Let the women learn quietly" and explains [F] "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." I looked it up, it's I Timothy 2:12

PRO: "1 Cor 14:29-31 clearly says that when prophets prophesy it is so that "ALL (doesn't ALL include MEN?) may LEARN." So unless you can prove that women are not prophets..." (verified) CON's rebuttal did not address this, except to say that the act prophesizing does not imply learning by others.

The Bible has numerous contradictions, IMHO. I don't subscribe to Christianity. This was enough to make me just rate this a draw.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
medic0506's vote inspired me to read this rather lengthy debate...

Will rate later.
Posted by ylange 5 years ago
ylange
I appreciated the debate, I am currently working through a long study of this topic and trying to determine what I believe and how I should live in obedience to the truth as taught in the Bible. I have experienced much on both sides of the spectrum in churches. I want to understand the deep root of both sides in order to proceed further. This debate has been helpful. I will vote when I have done my debates. I'm still reading and preparing. Thank you.
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
Thank you; when you do get some debates, please vote. If you want, you can post me a debate challenge. Thanks again.
Posted by MissLizz007 5 years ago
MissLizz007
Pro/Daley, I wanted you to know that you completely changed my opinion on this matter because I was originally taught by my mentor Con's view. I wanted to voted but I cannot since I have not done any debates. I am truly impressed. I admire your knowledge and thirst for the Word.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
Check the RFD, Cliff doesn't judge using those categories, he just uses them to split points.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Cliff,

What lost me the S&G and Conduct points?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
ilovedebate

How did Daley get the source vote, when we both quoted from the same source and did so in a similar manner?
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
Hi Gil,
Thanks for the comments. I was trying to get on to the site from ur link but my computer has a problem; when I try to open the document it comes up encoded...Can you copy that article on the translation of "what?" and sent it to my email please? daleyveneita at live dot com..

If possible, I'd really appreciate it. I really enjoyed this debate. ReformedArsenal is indeed a worthy opponent. By the time you've done debating him, you've gotta know what you know a whole lot better, and have an appreciation for the other view as well. I hope readers continue to find this debate enlightening.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
Thank you sir!
I also enjoy our discussions and am grateful to receive your feedback. I am thoroughly glad to count you as a friend.

Shortly I will post in comments my understanding of Timothy and get your guys feedback.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate, I'm very impressed by both sides. This is one of, if not THE best, that I've seen so far, and I congratulate both of you. As the resolution is written, BoP falls entirely on pro, but I feel that con did a good job of casting sufficient doubt on pro's argument. Pro, however, made such a good argument that I'm no longer sure where I stand on this issue, and both sides have inspired me to research this topic further. I thank you both and demand a rematch!!
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The characteristics of the apostles weren't considered by Daley nor were the traditions that the apostles created, which are bound in Heaven, considered by Daley.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: "My opponent seems to have abandoned the idea of an organized argument." - indeed, 1 pt to Con for constant summarizing and trying to reform the argument, 1 pt for setting the debate and BoP (should have been Pro), the arguments were fairly even, but Pro had to sustain BoP which he could not, 3:2 there.
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: asdf
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: So many of the arguments were irrelevant to the point. Con wins arguments for pulling out verses that directly say women should not teach or exercise authority over a man. Pro's attempts to find examples that suggest otherwise did not overcome the prophesy vs teaching distinction or generalize examples of women teaching into biblical instruction. Pro lost the conduct vote in round 5 for personalizing the debate by saying that Con doesn't mind unfair and unjust actions.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you put a lot of effort into this debate, and I can tell. Thus, I have set up my vote to award both of you 3 points.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 6 years ago
Jillianl
daleyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote pro because I think he did a better job of explaining the conflicting biblical statements in the Bible about women's role.