Frank

Dave, I agree with you. What Mike said in response to Cheryl’s question is logically inconsistent and incoherent for someone holding his view. And I tried posting the following questions to his website, but for some reason it would accept them:

Mike:
If 1 Tim. 2:12 is a divine law that prohibits women from expounding and applying God’s Word to mixed audiences in general, and of men in particular, in all times and in all places, then how do you account for the prophetic ministries of Deborah and Huldah?

In the first case, Deborah was both a prophet and judge, raised up by God, and given the same authority and approval as was Samuel, the last of the prophet/judges. And there is nothing in the OT that suggests she was God’s “second best” choice, nor any indication that the other leaders were rebuked for following her.

And in Huldah’s case, who was a contemporary of Jeremiah, King Josiah sent his envoys directly to her for interpretation of the Mosaic Law in a time of national crisis. Yet there is nothing in the OT that indicates either she sinned in giving the king counsel from Scripture, nor that the king sinned in receiving and acting on it.

Now if, as complementarians argue, that Paul’s use of the creation narrative in 1 Tim. 2:12-14 is intended to prohibit women in all circumstances in authoritatively teaching men in the covenant community, whether it be Israel or the Church, then the Apostle is forbidding what God in these two cases permitted. Isn’t this a blatant condtradiction within the canon of Scripture itself? And if not, why not? How would you explain this contradiction of Scriture, if you, like myself, don’t believe there is any true contradiction within Scripture?