It turns out that I was NOT able to upload ANY files to my blog. The website is programmed to disable such features. But next time, I will try to create my own website and put all the information on there so that I can have the material to download and upload.
As I said, the presumption must always be in favor of the sentence given by the Scriptures, no matter HOW severe, cruel, or dictatorial it may seem. George Francis Wilkin warned about making mere unauthorized hypotheses in Scripture interpretation. If even just one of these mere hypotheses is of just the right kind, then we can actually prove anything and EVERYTHING we please, no matter how much they contradict each other, and the Scripture is turned into the supreme law of Unreason instead of the supreme law of Reason!!! If the Scripture gives the reason, we must acquiesce and give the full presumption in favor of that. This means that only hypothesis consistent with this presumption are allowed. Therefore we will stick ONLY with hypotheses that can be made consistently with this presumption.
Another important rule that I will make much use of is the sanctity of assemblies of worship. I do not mean sanctity of the BUILDINGS used for worship --- because the Lord does not dwell in temples built with human hands --- but the sanctity of the social ACT or EVENT of assembling ourselves together for devotional purposes. There has been a great failure even among die-hard ultrafundamentalists today to insist firmly, with stateliness and dignity, and with reverence and fear, on the sanctity due to these meetings of worship. Preachers even in the most FORMAL and OFFICIAL assemblies of worship, deign and stoop to JOKE and CLOWN in the pulpit. The people may be amused, but God is not amused. God did not create mankind for the sake of his own amusement and pleasure, but for His Divine Glory and Honor and Dignity. Later on, I will demonstrate unto you that certain House Church meetings are especially prone to fall into that sin. And later I will show you WHY the supreme necessity and highest law governing the decorum and propriety of the relation between the speaker and hearers is in the SANCTITY due to that occasion, and that this sanctity excels the moral importance and weight of all other incidents of the devotional assembly, just as surely as Heaven excels above the Earth.
But Scripture warns us that "there is no new thing under the sun" ---- St John Chrysostom noticed this tendency to levity even in the most formal meetings of his time, especially with women engaging in PRIVATE social gregarious conservations with each other in those church worship services! St John Chrysostom did not hesitate to apply 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 to forbid even private social gregarious conservations of women with each other during formal assemblies of worship!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
SECOND CHALLENGE AND APPEAL TO ALL THE ULTRA-FUNDAMENTALISTS OF CHRISTENDOM!
So far, no one has dared to prove me or George Francis Wilkin wrong. Are these ultra-fundamentalists cowards, imbecile weak-willed gutless men, that they REFUSE or NEGLECT or FAIL to answer my invitation to read my blog and prove me wrong?
I will soon try if I can to place a file containing my studies on the doctrine of the TEXT of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35. My study is different from most other studies, in that it emphasizes the nature of the SETTING in which Paul imposed this harsh and dictatorial precept, such setting beind defined INDEPENDENTLY of any external or internal LOCALLY and CULTURALLY conditioned circumstances.
Now the text specifically states that --- as in all the CHURCHES of the saints; let YOUR women keep silence in the CHURCHES ... the Greek word is EKKLESIA, and it has definite article both times in the original Greek. This means that Paul is talking about something definite, some duly recognized peculiar order or office of a given thing or class of thing, as opposed to just any old order or office in general.
And this office must be construed INDEPENDENTLY of any external or internal LOCALLY and CULTURALLY conditioned circumstances, because ANY ultra-fundamentalist can tell you that Paul is appealing only to UNIVERSAL standards and customs INDEPENDENT of the culture as part of the judicial authority of this statute.
Well, what could the applicability of this rule depend on? Let me count the ways that conventional wisdom has traditionally come up with: (1) the Publicity, (2) the Promiscuity, (3) the Formality, (4) the Officiality, (5) the Sacred character of the meeting, (6) the fact that it is a duly appointed REGULAR and STATED meeting of the Saints on the Christian Sabbath, etc. It is characteristics like these that even the most diehard ultrafundamentalist would ever expect to be typical of a CHURCH meeting, irrespective of any local or cultural circumstances, especially the ones that feminists often appeal to in order to "evade" the statute.
I will soon try if I can to place a file containing my studies on the doctrine of the TEXT of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35. My study is different from most other studies, in that it emphasizes the nature of the SETTING in which Paul imposed this harsh and dictatorial precept, such setting beind defined INDEPENDENTLY of any external or internal LOCALLY and CULTURALLY conditioned circumstances.
Now the text specifically states that --- as in all the CHURCHES of the saints; let YOUR women keep silence in the CHURCHES ... the Greek word is EKKLESIA, and it has definite article both times in the original Greek. This means that Paul is talking about something definite, some duly recognized peculiar order or office of a given thing or class of thing, as opposed to just any old order or office in general.
And this office must be construed INDEPENDENTLY of any external or internal LOCALLY and CULTURALLY conditioned circumstances, because ANY ultra-fundamentalist can tell you that Paul is appealing only to UNIVERSAL standards and customs INDEPENDENT of the culture as part of the judicial authority of this statute.
Well, what could the applicability of this rule depend on? Let me count the ways that conventional wisdom has traditionally come up with: (1) the Publicity, (2) the Promiscuity, (3) the Formality, (4) the Officiality, (5) the Sacred character of the meeting, (6) the fact that it is a duly appointed REGULAR and STATED meeting of the Saints on the Christian Sabbath, etc. It is characteristics like these that even the most diehard ultrafundamentalist would ever expect to be typical of a CHURCH meeting, irrespective of any local or cultural circumstances, especially the ones that feminists often appeal to in order to "evade" the statute.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
IN SACRIS vs. CIRCA SACRA
We will also encounter the question of CIRCA SACRA versus IN SACRIS. In all matters IN SACRIS the precepts are universally and perpetually binding. But nevertheless, '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 not just a modern feminist innovation. This is from ancient times, a bulwark STANDARD of fundamentalist Reformed Confessional Theology. But in these circumstances, if the reasons are universal and permanent enough to make it universally and perpetually binding, we shall in due time prove that these same precepts were just as applicable even BEFORE they were given as afterwards, and therefore are moral laws of nature. But if the statute is appealing to a circumstance peculiar to the Church qua duly appointed part of the religion {what Islam calls MUZDHAB, whereas DIN is more than just the divine office of worship, it is a SELF-COMPLETE duly prescribed and arbitrated mode of life as part of the duly appointed mode of the RELIGION, more like the Greek word DIAITA rather than the Greek word THRESKEIA} as part of the reason for the applicability of the rule, and it requires distinctions between settings as essential to the correct understanding of the rule, then this distinction must be precise, exact, and homogenous. It cannot be shifted around to suit the culture.
Now I am only speaking analogically concerning IN SACRIS and CIRCA SACRA: The “IN SACRIS” matters are those matters which are duly constituted elements of the DIN / MUZDHAB of Christianity in such a manner that you would expect it to peculiarly characterize it as the duly constituted religion properly and so-called; whereas the “CIRCA SACRA” matters are those matters addressed by the religion, in common with the circumstances of any civil or polite or social society, but really under the final jurisdiction of the laws of nature and reason.
If any matter of the religion can be adjusted to suit the culture, it must be a “CIRCA SACRA” matter, and the reasons inherent to that case must be sufficiently local and temporal enough to allow such a cultural accommodation.
Even if the matters are “CIRCA SACRA”, unless it can be proven from good and necessary consequence of Scripture, that the reasons UNIQUE to that case are sufficiently local and temporal enough to be changed or abrogated for the sake of cultural changes, distinctions between settings {and in the discussion of women silence in the church, distinctions commonly made between social settings are almost always SURE to turn up often} essential and critical to the correct understanding and the correct orthodoxy of the precept {which must be always presumed a priori to be permanent and universal exactly as written} must be exact, precise, universal, and uniform. It cannot be adjusted in order to suit changes in the culture, especially once they have become the subject of apostolic jurisdiction and the apostles appeal to the uniformity of church custom in applying this precept {even if such uniformity was observed independently of that precept}.
If any precept of the Christian religion is only local and culturally applicable, that is proof that it wasn’t originally intended as an IN SACRIS matter --- something which is a duly constituted element of Christianity in such a manner that you would expect it to peculiarly characterize it as the duly constituted religion properly and so-called, without relation to anything external or anything incidental to this subject matter. It is also a proof that it wasn’t intended for even a CIRCA SACRA universal and permanent moral law in itself.
But we need to prove both of these things. We need to prove first of all, that the nature of the reason adduced for the precept is that if it is a universally binding perpetual divine law of the religion, then it must be a CIRCA SACRA moral law of nature. Secondly, we must prove that the inherent nature of the subject matter discussed in the precept {construed independently of local and cultural circumstances} is insufficient to account for the reason why, in the event that it the precept in question hadn’t been revealed by God in His word, failure for this precept to even exist as a standing divinely binding law, let alone be applicable to that case, would lead to a de facto violation of the moral principles on which reason for the precept is based {i.e. the moral principles that are listed as the reason}.
What this means, is, admitting even if the REASON for the precept, namely, that women must be subject to men, were just as applicable to the voluntary assemblies Z*, as to the institutional assemblies E*, this is in itself not a sufficient proof that this principle of subjection would apply in such a manner to Z* sufficient to account for the reason WHY failing to apply this precept in Z* would lead to a de facto violation of that same principle which is admittedly applicable in Z*. And in fact, George Francis Wilkin has shown that the speaker in Z* is subject to the pleasure of his hearers, so the burden of proof is to show that, even if that precept in question hadn’t been revealed by God in His word, failure for this precept to be applied in Z* would still lead to a de facto violation of that same principle which is admittedly de jure applicable in Z*.
And every precept enforced in the Gospel and/or the Epistles of the Apostles that follows from good and necessary inference from its true proper and natural reasons being universally and perpetually binding and applicable, once they have been duly revealed at the duly appointed time, they become to the DIN/MUZDHAB {the duly revealed and formally constituted body of faith, morals, protocol, Divine Office of worship, Church Government & Gospel ministry} of Christianity as matters IN SACRIS {matters appertaining unto the worship of God peculiar to it as duly appointed Divine worship properly and so called} are unto the duly constituted Divine Office of Worship that Christ and His Apostles prescribed for standing stated and formal use in all duly constituted Christian churches. And therefore distinctions in settings or place essential to the correct understanding and orthodoxy of such laws and precepts must be uniform and exact and universally and permanently applicable. So therefore it cannot be changed or adjusted to suit the culture, or else that would impeach the wisdom of God in failing to have suitably adapted the DIN/MUZDHAD of Christianity for all needs, and not only are such changes illicit, but to allow changes like this would also allow changes in the ESSENCE of said precept to suit the culture: the EXISTENCE of that law would precede the ESSENCE. This my friend, is the unscriptural post-modern philosphy of EXISTENTIALISM. NO! We cannot and WILL NOT accept such a philosophy. The Bible teaches quite plainly that it is our ESSENCE, already devised by God even BEFORE the foundation of the world, that therefore precedes our EXISTENCE.
I will tell you more, later.
Now I am only speaking analogically concerning IN SACRIS and CIRCA SACRA: The “IN SACRIS” matters are those matters which are duly constituted elements of the DIN / MUZDHAB of Christianity in such a manner that you would expect it to peculiarly characterize it as the duly constituted religion properly and so-called; whereas the “CIRCA SACRA” matters are those matters addressed by the religion, in common with the circumstances of any civil or polite or social society, but really under the final jurisdiction of the laws of nature and reason.
If any matter of the religion can be adjusted to suit the culture, it must be a “CIRCA SACRA” matter, and the reasons inherent to that case must be sufficiently local and temporal enough to allow such a cultural accommodation.
Even if the matters are “CIRCA SACRA”, unless it can be proven from good and necessary consequence of Scripture, that the reasons UNIQUE to that case are sufficiently local and temporal enough to be changed or abrogated for the sake of cultural changes, distinctions between settings {and in the discussion of women silence in the church, distinctions commonly made between social settings are almost always SURE to turn up often} essential and critical to the correct understanding and the correct orthodoxy of the precept {which must be always presumed a priori to be permanent and universal exactly as written} must be exact, precise, universal, and uniform. It cannot be adjusted in order to suit changes in the culture, especially once they have become the subject of apostolic jurisdiction and the apostles appeal to the uniformity of church custom in applying this precept {even if such uniformity was observed independently of that precept}.
If any precept of the Christian religion is only local and culturally applicable, that is proof that it wasn’t originally intended as an IN SACRIS matter --- something which is a duly constituted element of Christianity in such a manner that you would expect it to peculiarly characterize it as the duly constituted religion properly and so-called, without relation to anything external or anything incidental to this subject matter. It is also a proof that it wasn’t intended for even a CIRCA SACRA universal and permanent moral law in itself.
But we need to prove both of these things. We need to prove first of all, that the nature of the reason adduced for the precept is that if it is a universally binding perpetual divine law of the religion, then it must be a CIRCA SACRA moral law of nature. Secondly, we must prove that the inherent nature of the subject matter discussed in the precept {construed independently of local and cultural circumstances} is insufficient to account for the reason why, in the event that it the precept in question hadn’t been revealed by God in His word, failure for this precept to even exist as a standing divinely binding law, let alone be applicable to that case, would lead to a de facto violation of the moral principles on which reason for the precept is based {i.e. the moral principles that are listed as the reason}.
What this means, is, admitting even if the REASON for the precept, namely, that women must be subject to men, were just as applicable to the voluntary assemblies Z*, as to the institutional assemblies E*, this is in itself not a sufficient proof that this principle of subjection would apply in such a manner to Z* sufficient to account for the reason WHY failing to apply this precept in Z* would lead to a de facto violation of that same principle which is admittedly applicable in Z*. And in fact, George Francis Wilkin has shown that the speaker in Z* is subject to the pleasure of his hearers, so the burden of proof is to show that, even if that precept in question hadn’t been revealed by God in His word, failure for this precept to be applied in Z* would still lead to a de facto violation of that same principle which is admittedly de jure applicable in Z*.
And every precept enforced in the Gospel and/or the Epistles of the Apostles that follows from good and necessary inference from its true proper and natural reasons being universally and perpetually binding and applicable, once they have been duly revealed at the duly appointed time, they become to the DIN/MUZDHAB {the duly revealed and formally constituted body of faith, morals, protocol, Divine Office of worship, Church Government & Gospel ministry} of Christianity as matters IN SACRIS {matters appertaining unto the worship of God peculiar to it as duly appointed Divine worship properly and so called} are unto the duly constituted Divine Office of Worship that Christ and His Apostles prescribed for standing stated and formal use in all duly constituted Christian churches. And therefore distinctions in settings or place essential to the correct understanding and orthodoxy of such laws and precepts must be uniform and exact and universally and permanently applicable. So therefore it cannot be changed or adjusted to suit the culture, or else that would impeach the wisdom of God in failing to have suitably adapted the DIN/MUZDHAD of Christianity for all needs, and not only are such changes illicit, but to allow changes like this would also allow changes in the ESSENCE of said precept to suit the culture: the EXISTENCE of that law would precede the ESSENCE. This my friend, is the unscriptural post-modern philosphy of EXISTENTIALISM. NO! We cannot and WILL NOT accept such a philosophy. The Bible teaches quite plainly that it is our ESSENCE, already devised by God even BEFORE the foundation of the world, that therefore precedes our EXISTENCE.
I will tell you more, later.
Friday, September 4, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
THE PROPHESYING OF WOMEN VOLUME I, DIVISION I: REVIEW OF THE BOOK BY GEORGE FRANCIS WILKIN ON THE PROPHESYING OF WOMEN!!!
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE AT HAND.
<<" The daughters shall prophesy" (Joel ii:28).
"Let the women keep silence in the churches" (I Cor., xiv: 34). >>
<<TO MY WIFE
THIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED
AS A TESTIMONY
TO THE
REVERENT LOYALTY TO GOD'S WORD
WITH WHICH SHE EVER SEEKS TO EMPLOY HER EMINENT PROPHETIC AND TEACHING GIFTS.
"Her husband * * * praiseth her, saying, Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all " (Prov. , xxxi: 28, 29).
>>
EXTRA TERRITORIUM JUS DICENDI NON PARETUR IMPUNE
No man shall be obeyed with impunity that exercises jurisdiction outside of the limits of his domain of investiture.
In the first 90 pages of his book, George Francis Wilkin argues that the INHERENT and INALIENABLE right of women to prophesy or speak in public in mixed assemblies for religious purposes is permanent and universal.
He eventually makes a distinction between the INSTITUTIONAL assembly and the VOLUNTARY assembly.
§1. GEORGE FRANCIS WILKIN’S THESIS:
George Francis Wilkins’s whole thesis is that the public speech of women be permanently and universally granted to all women in all promiscuous public assemblies EXCEPT the regular church meeting. He claims that there is something UNIQUE about the church meeting and its whole reason for existence that makes it inherently and essentially incompatible with the due subjection of woman to man for any woman to publicly speak for any reason at all. On the surface, his explanation makes more common sense than all other explanations that I have heard of.
His entire theory is based on the following distinction:
Institutional Assembly ----
~The vital organic principle is the duty of the church members to obey the command of God to assemble for worship at His stated regular times and observe His Divine Office of Worship the way He ordained it
~Because of the duty this imposes on the hearers to pay attention to those who have a recognized right to speak in such assemblies, the hearer is subject to the speakers
~For a woman to speak would be to subject all the men to her authority, contrary to the Male headship law which forbids this sort of thing
CONCLUSION: it is MALUM in SE {inherently wrong} to allow women to speak, even if it hadn’t been for the statutes given in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35, 1 Timothy 2:11/12.
Voluntary Assembly ----
~The vital organic principle is not the duty of the church members to obey the command of God to assemble for worship at His stated regular times and observe His Divine Office of Worship the way He ordained it, but on the contrary, the right of the people to attend just because they please
~The speakers are subject to the pleasure of the hearers
~It would no longer be an exercise of authority or jurisdiction for her to speak
CONCLUSION: 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 & 1 Timothy 2:11/12 do not apply to voluntary assemblies.
At face value, this rationale seems extremely plausible. Therefore the burden of proof is on those who deny it.
However, I intend to eventually prove that there is a deep flaw in one of his premises. It is about the “authority” of the speaker over the hearers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)