Cheryl

Greg,
I just read the page you quoted on-line in Grudem’s book and he completely ignores the “two or three witnesses” rule concerning a charge of sin.  None one of the verses that he quotes is a charge of sin.  This is a very weak point as he then has to explain why God would pick a book written to an individual instead of a church to create a brand new law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men.  It would then become the only law that is spoken as a law coming from a man instead of God, only law that isn’t repeated in scripture, only law that has an obscure word in it uniquely used in this passage and extremely rarely used outside the NT that has had theologians puzzling over it for years.  On top of that we have the end result of the prohibition given as the salvation of women if we take what some say is the “clear” meaning.  I think it is about time that these men are challenged with the inconsistencies that their charge of sin creates and then have them explain why God has given women who do not see this passage as forbidding all women from teaching men, a second witness so that they can be sure of their “sin”?  Is God prejudiced against women?  I would like to see these men in the hot seat having to answer the really hard questions.  I didn’t find any explanation in Grudem’s book why there is just one sin that doesn’t have a second witness.  Perhaps he is unaware that this is a requirement and he might have to be taught. 😉