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

Re: Elliott v. Yoder on Fox matters!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    Another reply from Gil Yoder to Scott Elliott: ############################## http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/301 (excerpts) Dear Scott,
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 8 1:32 PM
      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 2 of 7 , Sep 8 1:52 PM
        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 3 of 7 , Sep 8 1:58 PM
          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.