51 “Patrick” wrote:

I would ask you again, however, to be careful of the many straw men you are attacking. Here are some examples to show you what i mean.

47- “Perhaps it would be an appropriate time to ask why one should assume that Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12 rather than applying his stated purpose to have Timothy stop the teaching of error?”

I never said Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12, that is your assumption. I did say Paul was putting some sort of prohibition on women teaching. I never said he was stopping the truth of the gospel. The two are not necessarily compatible.

Not at all. If Paul is continuing his instruction for godly women and he stops these godly women from teaching men, then the assumption is that he is stopping godly teaching. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you believe Paul is not stopping the teaching of the truth of the gospel to men if Paul is stopping godly women from teaching men. Are you willing to say that it is okay for women to teach men the truth as long as they don’t teach men error? I know you are not. WE all agree that error needs to be stopped. The only disagreement is what we do with the teaching of the truth. So let’s have you create the proper identification of what Paul was stopping. There is truth and there is error. Was Paul stopping the teaching of truth by women to men? If you say this is a straw man, then define exactly what kind of teaching that Paul was stopping. Let’s verify this right now. Define your meaning so that we can all verify whether what I have said is a straw man or not.

49- “Actually that is not true regarding any permanent limiting of the gift. While only two or three are to speak in one meeting so that the edification of the church can happen unhindered, the one with the gift is free to speak at another time as there is no permanent injunction.”

I never said Paul was imparting a ‘permanent’ injunction on the gift of tongues.

You are the one who compared teaching to the gift of tongues. How are the two situations comparable if one results in a permanent injunction while the other does not? How are the two situations comparable if one stops women from teaching and the other does not stop speaking the words of God? Please explain.

49- “This is completely unlike the tradition that stops the teaching of the truth of the gospel for the common good.”

Here you parallel the false argument that i did not give (permanent injunction) with some sort of tradition that you are describing. Given the context, it’s obviously meant to be negative which is all the more troubling when you apply an argument to me that i myself did not give.

You are the one who compared the stopping of one gift with the stopping of teaching. If you are comparing the two saying that neither is a permanent injunction so that they can be compared, then come out in the open and provide your reasoning for now saying that the injunction against a woman teaching a man in the assembly is not a permanent injunction. Please explain for you appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and this kind of confusion is not helpful for discussion.

49- “Encouragement to release the gifts by asking God for the corresponding gift in no way corresponds to a universal prohibition of a gift for the benefit of males.”

Again you attack an argument i did not make. I never said there was a universal prohibition on the gift of tongues.

In this quote, I did not even mention a universal prohibition on the gift of tongues. I was showing you the flawed method of comparing a restriction that did not result in a universal prohibition with a restriction that does result in a universal prohibition of women teaching men (if the comp position is right). You appear to have a problem understanding something other than your own position. Let’s get this one nailed down too. Are you saying that there is a universal prohibition against a woman teaching a man in the assembly? Yes or no?

I highlight this because it can become frustrating and difficult to try and engage over a blog when straw men are constantly employed.

Frustration comes from trying to nail jello to the wall. It works for you to not give any definitions except that you are a typical comp, and any stating of your position is said to be a straw man. You won’t answer questions so why are you here?