Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Elliott v. Yoder on Fox matters!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    Gil Yoder s further response to Scott Elliott: ############################# http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/299 (excerpts) Scott, You
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 8 1:02 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Gil Yoder's further response to Scott Elliott:

      #############################

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/299

      (excerpts)

      Scott,

      You have mistaken a warning for a threat. My post was not meant as a
      threat at all, but just as a reminder that actions have consequences.

      I would not want you to respond to threats or simply to the fact that
      you might lose the
      fellowship you might now have with brethren, but the scriptures provide
      disfellowship and disassociation as an incentive to brethren to take
      care in what they teach.

      I want you to respond to sound biblical reasoning.

      If everyone did that there would be no controversy.

      Brother, I will respond to your post, but I see no response from you to
      anything that I wrote in my post to you.

      Do you accept that the scriptures teach that women should on some
      occasion teach men, or not?

      Many different brethren have given sound biblical reasoning to lead to
      that conclusion, but some brethren are ignoring those arguments.

      With regard to what Lewis wrote, I agree with most of it. I accept that
      the ANER goes with "to teach" and "to exercise authority." The only real
      disagreement that I have with his interpretation is the idea that ANER
      is to be interpreted as an object of those infinitives. ANER is in the
      genitive case. The genitive is not equivalent with the objective case in
      English. The
      closest Greek case to the English objective is the accusative case.

      The most literal way to translate ANER in the genitive is "of man" or
      "man's." Since the word modifies both "to teach" and "to exercise
      authority" then you could read the passage "not to teach of man, nor to
      exercise the authority of man," but "teach of man" is not very clear in
      English, so translating it adverbially with "manly" or "in the manner of
      man" gets at
      the heart of what Paul is writing.

      The passage isn't saying "not to teach man," but rather "not to teach
      like a man."

      Scott, there are just too many passage that have to be wrested that
      teach that a woman sometimes has an obligation to teach a man to
      interpret this passage as an absolute prohibition against it.

      Recognizing that the passage is against a manly manner, rather than
      against teaching men allows all of those passages that teach that woman
      are authorized to teach men to be
      interpretation without wresting them, or causing them to contradict the
      Bible.

      With regard to Tom's instruction I see nothing in Tom's instruction that
      I could disagree with. He merely pointed out that Col. 3:16 should not
      be
      interpreted as to allow a woman to teach without restriction in the
      assembly, and that 1 Tim. 2:12 does not prohibit all teaching by women
      even in an assembly.

      I saw nothing that contradicts what I teach, and nothing in Tom's
      instruction that gives way to what Marion and Gary teach on this
      subject.

      Marion and Gary teach that 1 Tim. 2:12 is an absolute prohibition
      against a woman teaching, but that Col. 3:16 "trumps" that passage and
      provides an exception. I wonder how they know that Col. 3:16 "trumps" 1
      Tim.2:12. (Trump really is an argument that Col. 3:16 contradicts the
      other passage.)

      Why couldn't 1 Tim. 2:12 "trump" Col. 3:16. In other words Col. 3:16
      teaches that we are to teach in singing in our worship, but 1 Tim. 2:12
      "trumps" Col. 3:16 and means that Women cannot sing when men are
      present.

      One "trump" is just as valid as the other, and there is no way of
      knowing which "trump" is high.

      The truth is passages of the Bible don't trump one another. They
      harmonize with one another.
      If 1 Tim. 2:12 teaches that women cannot teach, and Col. 3:16 (and other
      passages) teach that women can teach, then these passages aren't
      trumping one another; they are contradicting one another.

      This is proof that Gary and Marion's interpretation of these passages
      are false.

      You concluded, I could add more but I will give you a chance to comment
      on these two articles before I do so." Before you do, I think you should
      respond to what I have written.

      As far as Brant and Josh are concerned, I have reason to believe that
      they are interested in your soul and how you teach the truth, so I doubt
      that there is any need to apologize for including them in your replies.

      If you are trying to equate my inclusion of their addresses in this
      correspondence with Marion's inclusion of non-Christians and immature
      Christians in our initial discussion of these things, I believe you
      under estimate these
      brethren.

      Again, I will appreciate it if you don't share these posts with others.
      I am hoping to have this discussion with you, and not with Marion or
      Gary with you as a proxy.

      Scott, your support for Marion and Gary have slighted many of your
      friends.

      You should give that at least some consideration.

      Gil

      ############################
    • rlbaty@webtv.net
      Another reply to Gil Yoder by Scott Elliott. I think though Scott posted the following later, the following is actually an earlier response to Gil Yoder s
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 8 1:14 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Another reply to Gil Yoder by Scott Elliott. I think though Scott
        posted the following later, the following is actually an earlier
        response to Gil Yoder's first posted note. I guess Scott was not
        particularly concerned with the sequence in which he posted the
        correspondence. It could be a little confusing and extra effort may be
        required to put the posts in order.

        ################################

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/300

        (excerpts)

        Brother Yoder,

        If I am going to enter into a discussion with you then I must first ask
        you to provide me with an adequate definition of "manly teaching." Your
        whole doctrine centers around this one phrase but I have yet to see it
        defined.

        Scott here

        What will I be marked for Gil?

        Will I be marked for my teaching on the role
        of women?

        Scott here

        I have also known the brethren at Piedmont for many years and I think
        you have misjudged them. I have discussed these matters with my elders
        and they do not agree with what you teach. In fact one member at
        Piedmont who
        attended the Elk City school of Preaching stated that what brothers Fox
        and Williams teach is what they were taught at Elk City.

        Scott here

        You are right Gil I do not know exactly what they did. I just assumed
        they delivered a lecture at a lectureship. If it was a class then I
        could change my statement to they taught a class.

        Scott here

        Do you have reason to believe they sinned in anyway?

        Maybe since brother Cosby is a part of this discussion he would be
        better qualified to answer this one question since his wife was one of
        the speakers.

        Scott here

        Are you suggesting that there are several definitions for "manly
        teaching"?

        I think this should be explained as well. What is considered "manly
        teaching" when a woman speaks to other women? What is considered "manly
        teaching" when a woman speaks to Christian men? What is considered
        "manly
        teaching" when a woman speaks to non-Christian men?

        What is considered "manly teaching" when a woman speaks to children?

        Scott here

        Please provide book, chapter, and verse for where these commands are
        given.

        Scott here

        Please give book, chapter, and verse that limits a woman from "teaching
        a Bible class."

        Scott here

        What is "over the line"?
        What constitutes a sin?

        Scott here

        I agree that a woman can impart knowledge to a man that would cause him
        to obey the gospel as long as she did not violate 1 Timothy 2:12 in
        doing so.

        I believe that all brethren have an obligation to convert the lost.

        Scott here

        When I teach this passage I always teach it as the husbands "may without
        a word be won." Obviously the husbands cannot be won without the word. I
        have no problem with 1 Peter 3. I think Peter gives istructions here to
        how a Christian woman is to convert her non-Christian husband. She is to
        be an example to him and convert him by her "manner of life."

        Scott here

        I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Peter 3. I do not believe Peter
        "shows two ways that the wives may teach their husbands." The phrase "if
        any obey not the word" is describing the husband. Peter informs us here
        that if their husband is not a Christian then they may be won without a
        word.

        I do believe that a Christian woman can speak to her non-Christian
        husband about spiritual matters and in some instances she is obligated
        to do so. I just do not find that teaching here.

        Scott here

        What do you mean by teach? Have you asked them what a woman can and
        cannot do with her husband? I know they believe that a woman can impart
        knowledge to her husband. I remind you that brother Tom Bright wrote the
        following in his article for Seek the Old Paths.

        Scott here

        I do not believe they are "reading into the Bible things that are not
        there." I believe they are teaching exactly what the Bible teaches that
        a
        woman is not to teach nor exercise authority over a man.

        What I do not read in my Bible is that a woman is not to teach in a
        "manly manner." Is there a
        credible translation that translates this passage in this way?

        Scott here

        I will never abandon my friends but first and foremost I must stand for
        truth.

        #############################

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • rlbaty@webtv.net
        Another reply from Gil Yoder to Scott Elliott: ############################## http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/301 (excerpts) Dear Scott,
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 8 1:32 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Another reply from Gil Yoder to Scott Elliott:

          ##############################

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/301

          (excerpts)

          Dear Scott,

          I appreciate that you have taken the time to respond, and especially the
          attitude that you have taken in your last note. Also I hope that you
          will keep your heart opened to the very real possibility that the course
          you have chosen is the wrong course.

          With regard to the definition of "manly teaching," I think that I have
          already indicated what that means in several ways, but I will try again.

          FWIW I have used this explanation now in several venues, and most who
          have heard it have had no difficulty understanding what I mean. It is
          only a few, such as yourself that for some reason don't seem to
          understand. It makes me wonder why that is the case.

          The word "manly" is simply the adverbial form of the word "man." It
          means "like a man." Or as Adam Clarke wrote in a quote that has been
          appealed to by someone on OneHeart (I forget if this was by you or
          someone else), that
          which "belongs to man." It is a way to make sense of the literal "of
          man" which is inherent in the genitive of ANER, much as "of beauty" and
          "beautiful" have basically the same meaning, and as "of faith" and
          "faithful" are basically the same (as per Dana and Mantey).

          So "manly teaching" means teaching in a way that "belongs to man," or
          "in the manner of men," or with the air of a man. A woman is to teach in
          a womanly way, not a manly way. Do you not agree? To teach in a womanly
          way is
          to teach with a submissive and meek spirit. If a woman gets up and puts
          on the air of a man, she is sinning just as surely as a man who gets up
          and puts on the air of a woman.

          In the context of teaching it is possible for a woman to teach a man
          without stepping over the line into masculine behavior, but the
          scriptures are clear that woman must be careful in this matter.

          However, teaching a Bible class of men or giving a presentation before
          the church, or preaching are all activities that "belong to man," so it
          is not possible for a woman to do any
          of these things in a womanly way.

          They are all proscribed by Paul's instruction. This is the case no
          matter how much a woman may feign a womanly air. The very acts
          themselves are not womanly and no amount of pretending can change that.

          You ask, "What will I be marked for Gil? Will I be marked for my
          teaching on the role of women?"

          Yes, that is possible, but it is also possible that
          you could be marked for bidding godspeed to those who are in error and
          have been disfellowshipped by godly men.

          Scott, at least three brethren withdrew from the school that Marion
          directs because of the error that he teaches.

          All three of these brethren love Marion deeply, but because they could
          not agree with his extreme views, they left the school.

          When you took one of their places, you slapped them in their faces. You
          have given little consideration that these men left the school because
          of a conviction that they have regarding the seriousness of Marion's
          error.

          At the very least, even if you did not understand all of their
          reasoning, the wise course would
          have been to hold back until you have a better understanding of the
          situation.

          Scott, the Piedmont church helped to sponsor my mission work in Moab,
          Utah around the time you were born.

          I know those brethren believe that the Great Commission is a commission
          we are commanded to obey, and that they do not
          agree with Marion and Gary that women cannot teach men.

          Your grandfather, brother Bob Patterson, was one of my supporters back
          then, and I count him as a friend. I have not visited with him in many
          years, but I know him to be one who loves the truth.

          I wonder, Scott, if the Piedmont church knows what Marion and Gary have
          been teaching on the subject. The fact that you discussed the matter
          with them does not give me confidence that they have heard both sides. I
          think if they
          were to hear the whole story, their opinions would not be the same as
          you think.

          I am not suggesting that there are several meanings for "manly
          teaching." But I am suggesting that an apparent demeanor in one
          situation would not necessarily be a true demeanor in another.

          A woman must always teach in a womanly way. If she starts to behave like
          a man, even when teaching men, she is in sin. Men are not
          charged with teaching in a submissive spirit, but women are.

          If a woman seeks a leadership role over men, such as is inherent in a
          Bible class or worship service when teaching occurs, she is not behaving
          in a submissive spirit.

          But when a woman teaches a man in other ways, leadership is not
          necessarily inherent in the act. She could step over the line and
          domineer, and she would be in sin, that is not necessarily the case.

          When a woman speaks in a Bible class, it is possible for her to speak in
          a submissive way, and it is possible for her to speak in a domineering
          way.

          The former is proper; the latter is not. In both cases the woman might
          teach something by her comment. Such teaching is not condemn in and of
          itself, unless the teaching is with a manly spirit.

          A woman is not permitted the same latitude of teaching that man has.
          While I think in most cases even a man who speaks in a Bible class
          should speak meekly, there have been times that I have felt compelled to
          domineer a class
          even from the pew, such as when a teacher begins to teach serious error.

          I would not permit my wife to speak with the same latitude that I permit
          myself, but neither do I prohibit my wife from speaking in a meek way,
          even if such involves teaching men. My wife in fact has been able to
          teach me many things, and I suspect that if you are wise, you would
          allow your wife to teach you too.

          Scott, I cannot believe that you think that a woman can say nothing that
          might teach her husband what to do to obey the gospel. That is an
          extreme position and why it is such a danger to the church.

          Scott, don't be foolish. I have simply reported what they teach, and you
          know they teach this. Gary was asked if a woman can evangelize a man. He
          said no.

          Marion and repeatedly said that a woman cannot teach (didasko) a man.

          That is a false statement, and I don't even have to know what teach
          means to say it.

          However, I know what teach means, and these men don't. That is why they
          make false statements.

          I know they say this too (i.e., a woman can impart knowledge to her
          husband). But they say this is not teaching.

          That is false, and needs to be opposed. It cause division in the church
          and is wrecking our
          unity.

          You should oppose it too.

          Marion Fox gave this translation of the passage in a private letter to
          Ron Cosby: "But I permit not woman to teach, nor in any other way to
          execute authority of man, but to continually be in a state of
          quietness."

          Marion recognized that the genitive ANER means "of man" and not "over
          man." If as
          you have already admitted agreement to the term ANER goes with both
          teaching and exercising authority, then Paul was teaching that a woman
          could not do the teaching of men. I accept that as a valid translation
          of the passage.

          You have already done so, Scott (i.e., abandoned friends).

          Don't kid yourself about this. I would like
          to you recognize the value of the friendships you have threatened, and
          work to correct the damage. You can stand for the truth and keep your
          friends, and this is what I would pray for.

          Gil Yoder

          ############################

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • rlbaty@webtv.net
          Another response to Gil Yoder from Scott Elliott: ########################### http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/302 (excerpts) Dear
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 8 1:52 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Another response to Gil Yoder from Scott Elliott:

            ###########################

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/302

            (excerpts)

            Dear Brother Yoder,

            I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. The church here in
            Piedmont is my first priority and sometimes I get busy with work I must
            do for the church. One of the saddest things in this whole mess is that
            so much time has been wasted on attacking each other that could have
            been spent spreading the gospel.

            I appreciate your willingness to continue this
            discussion with me. I have received several e-mails from others who were
            included in this discussion.

            At this time, I only plan on answering e-mails
            from you, Gil.

            Gil, I am not a Greek scholar. I was wondering if there was any other
            occassion in the Bible when a genitive noun is used as an adverb? A
            book, chapter, verse would be great.

            Scott here

            I do agree it would be a sin for a woman to act manly and for a man to
            act womanly.

            Gil, suppose I were to stand a woman up in front of an audience of all
            women, blindfold her and instruct her to begin teaching in a womanly
            way.

            If I begin to slowly take all the women out and replace them with men,
            are you telling me she would go from "womanly teaching" (which is not a
            sin) to "manly teaching" (which is a sin) without her changing a single
            action?

            I find it hard to believe that a woman could go from "womanly teaching"
            to "manly teaching" without changing anything she does.

            Is this not what you advocate?

            Gil, you also state, "To teach in a womanly way is to teach with a
            submissive and meek spirit."

            Does this mean if a man was submissive and
            meek he would be teaching in a womanly way (which would be a sin)? Is a
            man not supposed to be meek when he teaches? Is a man not supposed to be
            submissive to certain people (such as Christ and his eldership) when he
            teaches?

            Scott here

            Prove with a BCV that a woman is not to preach, teach a Bible class
            before men, or give a presentation. You taught in your presentation on 1
            Timothy that this passage not only applies to spiritual matters but
            secular matters as well.

            You gave two examples one of a woman college professor and another of a
            woman politician. Would it be wrong for a woman college professor to
            stand up in a mixed audience and give a presentation?

            Scott here

            Are the acts not womanly because you say so or because you can prove it
            by the Bible?

            Scott here

            Gil, there are thousands of old ladies across this country who have set
            in Baptist churches and had the doctrines of once saved always saved and
            faith only explained to them and afterwards they have probably come up
            to their
            "pastor" and stated that he made that subject clearer than it has ever
            been to them.

            Am I supposed to accept those false doctrines simply because thousands
            of old ladies find it to be very clear?

            I remind you again, Gil, I only respond to sound Biblical reasoning and
            the above paragraph is far from that.

            Scott here

            Are you telling me that Deut. 22:5 is binding on us today? Is a woman
            allowed to wear a pants suit to worship or the office?

            Scott here

            I see that you are making the actual teaching the fellowship issue. Do
            you agree with the 2/3 of the Dyersburg elders that those who teach the
            great commission is not binding today should be marked and withdrawn
            from as well.

            Will you be consistent and withdraw from everyone who holds these
            positions and everyone who is on the staff or attends the school?

            Scott here

            Gil, to my knowledge only two brethren withdrew from the school and one
            of those brethren believes in the Bales doctrine (that there are two
            laws in the NT). He also believes in children church and supports the
            Christian
            Chronicle and Herald of Truth. You can go to the churches website where
            he preaches and find links to these two works. You have stood behind
            this man in the past and praised him for his actions. Are you willing to
            stand behind these things he advocates and supports as well?

            The other teacher holds the same view as Marion on the great commission.
            2/3 of the elders at Dyersburg have stated publicly that this is a
            fellowship issue. Are you willing to stand behind those elders and
            withdraw from everyone who holds this view?

            Gil, you stated, "When you took one of their places, you slapped them in
            their faces." I was asked to be a teacher at the school long before
            these two men resigned. They both were handed schedules that had my name
            on it
            and the classes I was going to teach before they resigned. I did not
            take one of their places.

            Scott here

            Are you accussing me of lyng to my own eldership about these matters?

            I have told them exactly what Marion and Gary teach and exactly what you
            teach.

            When I tell people about your teaching on 1 Timothy 2:12 and "manly
            teaching" most reply they have never heard that before. It was a new
            teaching to me as well. I had never heard it until I began to read your
            comments on Let Us Reason.

            Scott here

            Do you think it is possible for a woman to go from womanly teaching to
            manly teaching without changing her behavior?

            Scott here

            Are you suggesting that it would be wrong for a man to be submissive
            when teaching a class?

            Scott here

            I, nor Marion have ever suggested that a woman cannot comment in a Bible
            class. In fact I have set in Bible classes that Marion has taught where
            women have made comments, read passages from the Bible, and asked
            questions.

            Scott here

            I have never restricted my wife from making comments in Bible class or
            in my presence. Do I believe she could sin in doing so? Absolutely, and
            I think you feel the same way, but so far my wife has not crossed the
            line and I don't believe she will.

            Scott here

            You state that the Bible teaches by implication. Can people teach by
            implication as well? If I were to teach something that implied false
            doctrine would this be wrong?

            Scott here

            Gil, my answer is not meaningless. I still stand behind my statemant
            that " a woman can impart knowledge to a man that would cause him to
            obey the gospel as long as she did not violate 1 Timothy 2:12 in doing
            so."

            Gil, are you going to withdraw from me for refusing to use your
            terminology? I prefer to use Bible terminology. Paul states, "I permit
            not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man."

            Brother Tom Bright stated the following, "In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul wrote
            'But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,
            but to be in silence.' Here a woman is forbidden to "teach" (Gk.
            didasko) a man." I agree with this statement by brother Tom Bright.

            Gil, you say a woman can didasko a man.
            Please give me a BCV that commands a woman to didasko a man. Gil, I can
            show you in the Bible where states a woman cannot didasko a man; can you
            show me where a woman can didasko a man?

            Scott here

            Again Gil, I prefer Bible terminology. I can show you where Paul says a
            woman is not to teach a man (1 Tim. 2:12). I can also show you where a
            woman is allowed to expound to a man (Acts 18:26). You appeal to an
            English dictionary as your authority and when I define teach I appeal to
            Thayers. Are you suggesting that an English dictionary should be our
            authority when
            we define Bible terms?

            Scott here

            Gil, can the same Greek word have different meanings throughout the NT?

            Aren't we supposed to define the Greek word by its context when it has
            more than one definition?

            Scott here

            Gil, sometimes Greek words have more than one definition just as English
            words have more than one definition. We must determine the definition by
            the context. Again, I would ask you to provide BCV where a woman is
            commanded to didasko a man. I can provide BCV where Paul informs us that
            a woman is not to didasko a man.

            Scott here

            Gil, where in this passage does it say a woman is to teach her husband?

            Scott here

            Gil, you stated, "Scott, I cannot believe that you think that a woman
            can say nothing that might teach her husband what to do to obey the
            gospel. That is an extreme position and why it is such a danger to the
            church."

            This is a gross misrepresentation of what I believe. If you will go back
            to my original e-mail you will see that I made this statement when
            commenting on this verse " I do believe that a Christian woman can speak
            to her
            non-Christian husband about spiritual matters and in some instances she
            is obligated to do so. I just do not find that teaching here." Gil, how
            could you misunderstand this statement and assume that I believe a woman
            cannot
            even speak to her husband?

            Scott here

            Gil, do you believe this statement by Tom Bright is a false statement?

            "Here a woman is forbidden to "teach" (Gk. didasko) a man."

            Above you stated, "Marion and repeatedly said that a woman cannot teach
            (didasko) a man.

            That is a false statement, and I don't even have to know what teach
            means to say it."

            Why would this be a false statement when Marion said it but not when Tom
            Bright said it?

            They are identical statements.

            Scott here

            Gil, Marion and others say a woman cannot teach but she can impart
            knowledge. You say that imparting knowledge is teaching. By your
            definition, Marion and others believe it is OK for a woman to teach. Are
            you going to withdraw from people because they refuse to use your
            terminiology?

            Scott here

            Gil, you did not answer my question. Is there a reliable translation
            that translates 1 Timothy 2:12 they way you translate it? Is there any
            reliable translation that uses the phrase "manly manner."

            You quote Marion's translation but his translation does not use "man" as
            an adverb.

            Scott here

            Gil, I have not abandoned my friends. I have believed what I believe now
            for several months and they have known this. I have expressed my beliefs
            to them and they have stated that they will stick by me. I have not
            changed my
            beliefs. I have not abandoned my friends. The question is, "Will my
            friends keep their word and stick by me?"

            In His Service
            Scott

            ###########################

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • rlbaty@webtv.net
            The following appears to be the present conclusion of the Elliott v. Yoder discussion: ############################
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 8 1:58 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              The following appears to be the present conclusion of the Elliott v.
              Yoder discussion:

              ############################

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/303
                
              From: "Scott Elliott"
              Date: Thu Sep 8, 2005 

              Subject: Correspondence between Gil Yoder and Scott Elliott

              I did not receive a response from Gil so I e-mailed him asking if he
              planned on responding and continuing our correspondence.
              He responded with a question for me to answer. I answered that question
              and then I received this e-mail from Gil.

              > I agree that there was no binding
              > obligation for you not to share the
              > e-mail with others. Neither is there
              > any binding obligation for me to
              > engage you further.

              > I don't believe that I wish to carry
              > on this discussion.

              > Gil

              ############################

              I guess that pretty much explains why Scott eventually chose to publish
              the correspondence, such as he has.

              It does help us to get additional insight into what is going on; though
              there still appears to be a lot going on that is not getting around.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.