1 Timothy 2:15

[OopsMartin]

Interesting. Are you from a Roman Catholic background, OooooopsMartin? No-one of the reformed faith whom I know bandies around the word "anathema". it is not Scriptural but has to do with the traditions of men, vis a vis the Roman Catholic church. What made you choose to use the word "anathema?"

Ruth

Ask Neo, Ruth. He is the one that used it, I was merely responding to his wording.

However, Roman Catholics are not the only ones who have used the word. It was quite popular in the seventies when I was a young Christian.

[OopsMartin]

Sorry, Inhistime, but I switched off at the "do you see that this is what Peter is saying" bit. Your tone is SO patronising! I am not entirely ignorant of the Scripture! In any event, I'd prefer Neopatriarch's "thus saith the Lord" exegesis any day, although I also recognise that you cannot offer it because God has not entrusted you, as a woman, with that same authority. However, I do think you could very capably teach children and other women, although I would probably contest your interpretation!

Ruth.

PS Before you contest the male/female role, please consider why God has not entrusted men with childbearing and why it is the preserve of the woman.

Talk about patronizing, whew. And this is one woman to another no less.

Ruth, I do believe you have misread Cheryl. When she asks "do you see", she is really hoping that you are understanding what she is trying to show you. Text only communication is very difficult because most of human conversation is exchanged in tone, eye contact, and body language, none of which is present in text only communication.

Your comparison between child bearing and teaching/leading authority is ??? since there is no comparison. They are not opposites. One does not oppose the other. One has nothing to do with the other. The balance is that the stronger human was given the ability to contain and pass the seed and the weaker in frame human (body adpatability for the carrying of the child) was given the ability to feed the maturing seed to birth.

Buddhism teaches that men are leaders and givers because of the shape of their genitals and women are receivers and followers because of same. These are not Scriptural teachings. No such thinking exists in Scripture.

[Neopatriarch]

Therefore it is likely that the woman in 2:12 is indeed one of the "certain persons" in 1:3.

Please show me how you've drawn your conclusion that the "certain persons" in 1:3 are Christians.

As for those Christians who are teaching different doctrines from what Scripture actually says, they are all over the internet, all throughout churches, some are even pastors.

In verses 12-17 Paul is specifically talking about the gospel. If the problem with the false teachers doesn't relate to the gospel, why did Paul bring it up?

[Neopatriarch]

Interesting. Are you from a Roman Catholic background, OooooopsMartin? No-one of the reformed faith whom I know bandies around the word "anathema". it is not Scriptural but has to do with the traditions of men, vis a vis the Roman Catholic church. What made you choose to use the word "anathema?"

Ruth

Ask Neo, Ruth. He is the one that used it, I was merely responding to his wording.

However, Roman Catholics are not the only ones who have used the word. It was quite popular in the seventies when I was a young Christian.

anathema is the Greek word for "accursed" in Galatians 1:9. I used it only because I thought it might make my words click better with some. Wrong audience I guess. BTW, I am reformed.

-Neopatriarch

[methinkshe]

Sorry, Inhistime, but I switched off at the "do you see that this is what Peter is saying" bit. Your tone is SO patronising! I am not entirely ignorant of the Scripture! In any event, I'd prefer Neopatriarch's "thus saith the Lord" exegesis any day, although I also recognise that you cannot offer it because God has not entrusted you, as a woman, with that same authority. However, I do think you could very capably teach children and other women, although I would probably contest your interpretation!

Ruth.

PS Before you contest the male/female role, please consider why God has not entrusted men with childbearing and why it is the preserve of the woman.

Talk about patronizing, whew. And this is one woman to another no less.

Ruth, I do believe you have misread Cheryl. When she asks "do you see", she is really hoping that you are understanding what she is trying to show you. Text only communication is very difficult because most of human conversation is exchanged in tone, eye contact, and body language, none of which is present in text only communication.

Your comparison between child bearing and teaching/leading authority is ??? since there is no comparison. They are not opposites. One does not oppose the other. One has nothing to do with the other. The balance is that the stronger human was given the ability to contain and pass the seed and the weaker in frame human (body adpatability for the carrying of the child) was given the ability to feed the maturing seed to birth.

Buddhism teaches that men are leaders and givers because of the shape of their genitals and women are receivers and followers because of same. These are not Scriptural teachings. No such thinking exists in Scripture.

OOOPs,

Cheryl is trying to show HER opinion, not reveal God's word on the matter. At least, that is how I have received it. And whether or not she intends, I have found her "let us see what..." approach patronising, and it has not only been used to me but is rather a general approach on her part towards all protagonsists. Fair enough, I did say that I was offering a very non PC response and was ready to have my head bitten off for same. Nevertheless, that is my honest opinion - right or wrong.

And no, in a word, I am not "understanding what she is trying to show me". All I am understanding is a woman who has an ulterior motive which is to attempt to prove a personal preconception through distorting the plain counsel of Scripture.

And now I shall fully retire even from debating the debate.

Ruth

[OopsMartin]

OOOPs,

Cheryl is trying to show HER opinion, not reveal God's word on the matter. At least, that is how I have received it. And whether or not she intends, I have found her "let us see what..." approach patronising, and it has not only been used to me but is rather a general approach on her part towards all protagonsists. Fair enough, I did say that I was offering a very non PC response and was ready to have my head bitten off for same. Nevertheless, that is my honest opinion - right or wrong.

And no, in a word, I am not "understanding what she is trying to show me". All I am understanding is a woman who has an ulterior motive which is to attempt to prove a personal preconception through distorting the plain counsel of Scripture.

And now I shall fully retire even from debating the debate.

Ruth

Ruth, you have wrongfully judged Cheryl's heart. She has no "ulterior motive" of attempting to prove a personal preconception by deliberately distorting the plain counsel of Scripture. Cheryl has come to her conclusions by years of thoroughly researching Scripture. She speaks precept upon precept.

And for the little that it is worth, Cheryl has many Godly men who fully support her work, including myself.

This is what happens when our inner frustrations cause us to attack the person instead of carefully and diligently discussing the Scriptures with Christian charity.

[Floatingaxe]

Actually, this is the first intelligent dicussion of the matter I have come across. I am very pleased with what I am reading here! Inhistime has the most valid view, in my estimation. She has said exactly what I have come to believe in a very intelligent and coherent way.

God bless you! ( I am sure he does!)

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said:

Suffice it to say, in the grammar of 2:12, didaskein has no object. The issue isn't whether what a woman is teaching is correct or false doctrine. You won't find any mention of a correct or false doctrine being taught by the woman in the immediate context. The real issue whether Paul permits any woman to teach a man.

The immediate context is not just the chapter. Paul wrote this as a letter to Timothy and the immediate context starts with chapter 1. Paul states the reason why Timothy was left in Ephesus. If

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said:

You already have in mind a black and white distinction between deceivers and the deceived based on 2:12-15 and are sorting verses into one category or the another based on this preconceived distinction.

Actually what happened for me is that while I was reading the scriptures in order to understand what Paul was saying in chapter 2, I realized that I needed to understand the complete context of the letter to Timothy. When I started reading in chapter 1, I noted how differently Paul treated the two different kinds of people teaching error. I noticed how harshly he treated Hymenaeus by not giving him another chance to learn in the congregation but instead he gave him over to Satan to learn not to blaspheme. I also noted the compassion that Paul expressed for those who were ignorant. When I came to verse 13, I saw so clearly why Paul had been so compassionate with those who are ignorant. Paul was comparing himself to these ignorant ones. Paul expresses hope in that those who are in error because of ignorance are still able to receive God

[inhistime]

Suffice it to say, in the grammar of 2:12, didaskein has no object. The issue isn't whether what a woman is teaching is correct or false doctrine. You won't find any mention of a correct or false doctrine being taught by the woman in the immediate context. The real issue whether Paul permits any woman to teach a man.

Now I know that, in an attempt to justify your claim that the woman is teaching false doctrine in 2:12, you've appealed to 1:3,7. I've structured my response as a modus tollens argument:

1. If the woman in 2:12 is one of the "certain persons" in 1:3, then Paul would not exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
   
2. But Paul does exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
   
3. Therefore, the woman in 2:12 is not one of the "certain persons" in 1:3.
   

Consequently, your contextual argument for claiming that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher breaks down. Your contextual argument is that "Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine" and you cite 1 Timothy 1:3,7 in support.

Regarding the antecedent in 1, a few things should be said:

1. They are teaching different doctrine. Different from what? If it's the gospel (cf. vss 12-17), it's serious.
   
2. They desire to be teachers of the law (v. 7), but they aren't using it lawfully (v. 8). You have to ask yourself what this means. Is it heresy?
   
3. They've missed the mark on Paul's aim which is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Note that they may never have had a sincere faith in the first place.
   
4. In 1:3 Paul says "certain persons" are teaching a different doctrine. Does this place them under the anathema in Galatians 1:6-10?
   

Do these "certain persons" have their heart in the right place? Do they love as they ought to? Is their faith genuine? Is it heretical? If you answer yes to these questions, then you have to wonder why Paul would exhort the woman in 2:12 to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control since she evidently was not practicing these things, but rather missing the mark on them (astocheō in verse 6). Further, if she is not a Christian (this may well be the case given 1:3-11), why would Paul say she will be protected through the Messiah?

-Neopatriarch

The woman in 2:12 is a woman who has been deceived, as we all can be deceived, but is still a Christian. Being deceived does not negate our Christianity. There are many false doctrines being spread throughout Christianity because people have been deceived, but they are still Christians. For the majority of them their deceptions are not about denying Christ as Hymenaeus and Alexander whose faith was shipwrecked.

Therefore it is likely that the woman in 2:12 is indeed one of the "certain persons" in 1:3.

As for those Christians who are teaching different doctrines from what Scripture actually says, they are all over the internet, all throughout churches, some are even pastors. And yes, some of them simply do not know how to study and exegete truth or Scripture. They have sorely missed the mark of God's love from a pure heart and good conscience and sincere faith and instead push teachings tthey think benefit themselves. And no it does not place them under the anathema in Gal. 1 which speaks of those turning away from Christ. They love God and are growing in grace. But they handle the Word of God incorrectly. When the Word is handled incorrectly it condemns persons instead of sin.

Such thinking as you have displayed is why we have Christians calling other Christian foul names, heretics, and questioning their commitment to Christ. Just because one loves God doesn't make them perfect like God. Everyone is at different stages in growth and maturity. And there are wolves out there deceiving people and then the deceived turn around and try to spread the deceptions. I've seen it often, even on Christian forums.

Interesting. Are you from a Roman Catholic background, OooooopsMartin? No-one of the reformed faith whom I know bandies around the word "anathema". it is not Scriptural but has to do with the traditions of men, vis a vis the Roman Catholic church. What made you choose to use the word "anathema?"

Ruth

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

The word translated as "accursed" is the Greek word anathema.