The Bible Teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church

Paul wrote to all the Christians in Colossae (Col 1:2) including women, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; TEACHING and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." (Col 3:16) All members of the body of Christ are told to TEACH one another. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28) Regarding Luke 24:4-11 my opponent says "The passage in question simply records the women reporting a fact. This does not constitute teaching." It doesn't occur to him that these women were preaching about the resurrection. Mirriam Webster's Dictionary defines "teach" as "to cause to know something…to impart the knowledge…to make known and accepted." These women's aim was to cause the disciples to know that Jesus was resurrected, to impart the knowledge of the resurrection, to make it known to them. It was teaching. Wikipedia defines it as "Imparting knowledge by a teacher or other person (verb)." "My opponent brings up the account of Aquilla and his wife Priscilla expounding something to Apollos. This is an example of a descriptive passage. The bible has reported that a woman once TAUGHT a man... however this does not constitute TEACHING." How could a woman TEACHING a man not constitute TEACHING? She TAUGHT him, but it wasn't really TEACHING!?!? I'll let the readers of this debate decide what to think about that. "This is again simply describing an event... there are several events in the Bible that are recorded that we should not emulate (David murdering Uriah to steal his wife, whom he had already committed adultery with.)" The Bible records that David repented for what he did, doesn't record that Priscilla repented; the Bible says David was reproved by the prophet Nathan and chastised by God for what he did with Bathsheba, no such condemnation or punishment is recorded regarding Priscilla and Aquallia TEACHING Apollos. Further, the tone of Acts 18:24-28 is positive throughout with no hint that this was a bad example. So I don't think David's case is anywhere parallel to this one. "Beyond that, this passage states that Aquilla and Priscilla taught together. This does not constitute a case of a woman teaching executively over a man." This means they BOTH taught. So not only was the man teaching, so was the woman. My opponent argues that God is unfair. His source defined fair as "an adjective that means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." So by arguing that God is not fair he is saying that God is biased, dishonest, or unjust. Which is it? By your own definition, if God is unbiased, honest and just, then God is fair, and no amount of "two-legged dog" illustrations can rebut that! "However, if he could stop an event like the holocaust and didn't... he allowed it to happen (Permissive Will). If he COULD NOT STOP IT from happening, we would say it happened against his will... so if he could but didn't, we say it happened according to his will." My opponent has again by driven to extreme measures just to refute my argument. Now he argues there are things that an all powerful, all-knowing God COULD NOT STOP from happening! If God didn't know how to stop the holocaust then his knowledge was limited, if he wasn't powerful enough to stop it then his power was limited; since he had both the knowhow and power to stop it, its clear that he could have prevented it. My opponent claims that if he could stop it but chose not to, then it happened according to his will. God's will is his desire. (Rom 12:2) I showed Con that God's will is for all to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 says "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Now my opponent argues that if God allows people to choose not to repent, that it is according to his will, but 2 Peter 3:9 clearly says this is not his will. Con also claims that God has different types of wills, but the Bible never mentions such distinctions; these distinctions are created by my opponent, not Scripture. The Bible only speaks of "God's will," that is, what he wants! If something is against what God want then it isn't his will! Period! "Also, there is something called the "Moral Will of God" which is used to refer to what God finds morally acceptable." Everything God commands is what he wills, and everything God wills is morally acceptable. The distinction Con is trying to create exists only in his imagination, not in Scripture. What does "moral" mean? "MORAL: adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes." (Dictionary.com) All that God commands is right, obeying any of his commands is right conduct, disobeying him is wrong conduct. There is no division in his wills so that some are moral and not others. "There are many examples in scripture of God Providentially or Permissively ordaining thing that are contrary to his moral will... The Crucifixion of the only innocent man in history is one, the killing of women and children in the Judges and Joshua Narrative is another." God never ordained anything that was contrary to his will. God never ordained the killing of innocent women and children, they deserved to die according to God's judgment. When killing was done unjustly God didn't support it. Jesus dying to save us was not contrary to God's moral will, and I challenge my opponent to show us where the Bible says that it was. "If Job couldn't question the fairness of God... why can you?" Con is mixing apples and oranges here. God was not doing anything bad to Job, God was not at fault for his suffering. (James 1:13) But my opponent is saying God is at fault for why women can't teach in church. This makes him guilty of gender discrimination. Also, remember I said that we can only say God is unfair if we know his reasons and his reasons are not adequate. My opponent give two inadequate reasons why women can't teach men. (1) the man was not deceived but the woman was; now I don't believe women can't teach men, but assuming Con is right and they can't, this isn't a good reason because (a) Adam did even worse than Eve; she was tricked, but he DELIBEARTELY ate the fruit knowing what was involved, (b) the Bible blames the man, not the woman, for sin entering into the world (Rom 5:12), and (c) Satan has deceive the whole world of both men and women (Rev 12:9), so men are no better than women so that women are easily deceived and they aren't. His second reason is (2) the man was formed first. What does that have to do with teaching? Are not all humans made in the image of God? "He then moves on to discuss praying and prophesying in 1st Corinthians... I have already shown that Prayer and Prophecy are not the same as teaching. I am not contesting that women can pray or prophesy, I am contesting that they can teach over a man." So if they can pray and prophesy in church, they certainly are not supposed to "keep silent," for how could they be silent while praying and prophesying? The church has to hear them prophesy in order to receive edification. (1 Cor 14:3-4) This shows that the passage about women being silent and not permitting them to speak is not Paul's instruction, but the false teaching he was responding to. This is why he said, "What? Came the word of God out from you?" (1 Cor 14:36) 2 Tim 2:9-15 does mention a universal circumstance, but one about the family, not about the church. Adam was Eve's husband, her head in the family; nothing here about the church. It even mentions her being kept safe through childbearing; what has that to do with a church service? This is the most challenging debate I've had on DDO since I joined. I thank my opponent for his intriguing arguments. I'll think on them long after this debate.