PROPER METHODOLOGY!

Many tricks have been developed by the liberals and "feminists" to try and explain away the precise exact and dictatorial language used in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35. But all of these tricks are unscriptural. It is a fundamental principle of justice that the literal meaning of the words in a statute must never be departed from without necessity.


There are also two reasons adduced for the rule: (1) the subjection of woman to man, (2) that it is SHAME for women to speak in church. The first reason is universally and perpetually applicable regardless of local and cultural circumstances. And also Paul the Apostle appeals to exact uniformity of church protocol. And with the intuitive notion that CHURCH as used in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 refers to the FORMAL DULY APPOINTED gatherings of the whole body, and one would expect this formal and official character to be independent of local and cultural circumstances, the presumption is that this rule is universally and perpetually binding EXACTLY as written.

But this intuitive common notion, held from ancient times by all conservative and fundamentalist men in all of Christendom, about the dignity due to a church meeting does more than JUST lend strength to the proposition that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is a universally and perpetually binding law of CHURCH protocol, it also gives women an INHERENT right to speak in any and all public promiscuous assemblies that do not have the formality and officiality UNIQUE to the church meeting. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who would DENY women the INHERENT right to speak in any and all public promiscuous assemblies that do not have the formality and officiality UNIQUE to the church meeting, and this is EXACTLY what I have in fact proven, that this highly intuitive distinction is unscriptural.

Another important fact is that if you have in the Bible, anywhere, a moral precept, then the obligation of that precept exactly as written is due to the inherent and essential nature of the subject matter expressly discussed by that precept. But everyone knows intuitively that essential properties are independent of accidental changeable properties. The feminist often uses situation ethics at a time like this. The problem with situation ethics is it allows the moral precept to depend on accidental changeable circumstances that do not constitute inherent and essential properties of the subject matter expressly discussed IN SCRIPTURE by that precept. This is not just anti-Biblical {because the Bible says that the law of the Lord is perfect and unchangeable and invariable}, this is also contrary to the proper idea of a moral law and an essential property.

The Westminster Catechism states that:

<<6) The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation faith, and life, is either expressly set down in the scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from the scripture: to which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. 2Ti 3:15-17 Ga 1:8,9 2Th 2:2. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; Joh 6:45 1Co 2:9-12, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. 1Co 11:13,14 14:26,40>> -- this is the Puritan Confession, Chapter 1, Proposition VI.

This means that there are only 5 valid methods to establish Scriptural authority for a proposition in matters of moral law: (1) express precept from Scripture (2) approved example from Scripture (3) necessary inferences from Scripture (4) the actual facts governing the inherent and essential nature of the subject matter and deeds and works to be regulated in any one or more moral precepts of God’s word, that are discussed by those precepts, and how they work together to explain the moral obligation of those precepts exactly as written in Scripture (5) any valid inference from any combination of the previous four. Anything contrary to this is infidel and unscriptural.

But in matters of positive institution, only the mere letter of the law can be the valid authority. Inference and analogy, though allowed in the various ‘circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed’, are not allowed in positive institutions. Only the direct, duly appointed commands or examples established by the mere letter of the law taken FACE VALUE are allowed in positive institutions. So far, no one has shown up or dared to question my propositions.