scottmaciver
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi all,
I was directed by a friend to this lecture by RC Sproul on the Role of Women in the Church in relation to 1 Timothy 2:12.
The gist is that he stated that he is positive that a woman ought not to be ordained to exercise authority over men. However, he suggests that a case could be made for the legitimacy of woman's preaching so long as she doesn't preach with judicial authority. He bases this on the fact that practically speaking from an ecclesiastical perspective, government is always tied to ministry, hence the result that woman preachers aren't authorised. This he questions.
He brought up the example of Elizabeth Elliot and asked those in attendance if, hypothetically speaking, Elizabeth Elliot ought to speak from the pulpit on Sunday. Interestingly, someone spoke in response to say that Elizabeth Elliot had rejected the opportunity to do so from his pulipt and stated, 'I will not come and preach and usurp your authority.'
I don't agree with Sproul's position and find it surprisingly confused. He went so far as to state that he 'is taking the most liberal view conceivable without violating apostolic authority,' although he 'could be wrong and persuaded of it.' He also said he had concerns that he could be too liberal on this.
Does anyone know when this lecture series was recorded and if he still holds to the same view?
I was directed by a friend to this lecture by RC Sproul on the Role of Women in the Church in relation to 1 Timothy 2:12.
The gist is that he stated that he is positive that a woman ought not to be ordained to exercise authority over men. However, he suggests that a case could be made for the legitimacy of woman's preaching so long as she doesn't preach with judicial authority. He bases this on the fact that practically speaking from an ecclesiastical perspective, government is always tied to ministry, hence the result that woman preachers aren't authorised. This he questions.
He brought up the example of Elizabeth Elliot and asked those in attendance if, hypothetically speaking, Elizabeth Elliot ought to speak from the pulpit on Sunday. Interestingly, someone spoke in response to say that Elizabeth Elliot had rejected the opportunity to do so from his pulipt and stated, 'I will not come and preach and usurp your authority.'
I don't agree with Sproul's position and find it surprisingly confused. He went so far as to state that he 'is taking the most liberal view conceivable without violating apostolic authority,' although he 'could be wrong and persuaded of it.' He also said he had concerns that he could be too liberal on this.
Does anyone know when this lecture series was recorded and if he still holds to the same view?
