Women's pastors?

[OzSpen]

So you applaud someone who does NOT deal with the exegesis I supplied.

 

[abacabb3]

It makes one a church leader.

Indeed, according to 3 Oz Spen 4:17. I can't find it in my Bible, however, if you can point it out in mine I recant.

There are many missionary women in remote places of the globe who are in a prominent position of leadership in the local church.

There are also Jehovahs Witnesses by the millions preaching Arianism worldwide, does that prove that what they says is true or does the Scripture?

'Governing authority' (your language) is not biblical language as far as I can see.

Yes, because nothing we are saying is in Koine Greek. However, the Bible says of elders:

"The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching" (1 Tim 5:17).

So, if we spoke of Elders "ruling" that would be accurate. The also work at "teaching."

"f a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God" (1 Tim 3:5)?

So, the Overseer spoken of in 1 Tim 3 also "manages" the church.

Those who are not Overseers/Elders are called to submit to them:

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls" (Heb 13:17).

So, these men are "leaders" and because they are submitted to, they carry authority. Is "authority" a Biblical word?

"I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12).

Being that elders "rule" it would be fair to say that Paul had this in mind when he used the words "exercise authority" when speaking against the practicing of women ruling.

In light of several Scriptures that speak on the subject, saying Elders exercise "governing authority" is a accurate description of what the Bible talks about.

 

[abacabb3]

So you applaud someone who does NOT deal with the exegesis I supplied.

 

[abacabb3]

If that is the way you deal with my detailed exegesis of Rom 16:7, I will not respond to you any further. Being among the apostles was like my being among the other musicians playing guitar. I was one of the musicians.

 

[abacabb3]

You did not need to see the resurrected Christ to be an apostle according to 1 Cor 12:27-31 and Eph 4:11-14.

Name an Apostle that didn't see the resurrected Christ.

I do wish you would read the whole of the NT to get an understanding of who were apostles.

Man, you caught me, I have been piecing it together from the back of cereal boxes and sugar packets, I really should get around to reading the book.

 

[Metal Minister]

I provided you with detailed exegesis of Rom 16:1 and Junia being a female apostle and this is what I got from you. You were the one who challenged me to demonstrate that she was a female. I did that, and now you come back with this red herring.

I will not take you seriously again in this thread when you ask me to demonstrate a theological point. You have treated my exegesis as something to be ignored. Not once in your response did you deal with my exegesis.

Bye.

No, you didn't. Perhaps READ what you copy and pasted before declaring victory. Even your quote admits that what is being put forth is speculation. The fact that you're playing the persecution card tells me a great deal. I dealt with your (actually someone else's that you copy and pasted) exegesis, and as I said, I pointed out that it stated it was no a conclusive answer! Hand waving and acting "righteously indignant" doesn't refute the fact that your best shot at overturning what Christians have had revealed to them for the entirety of church history, is at best a speculation and flat eisegesis. You have a tendency to do this when you're caught up short with your arguments Oz, it's worn out and so transparent I can see right through it. So yes, you're right, if all you get from me is a refutation based on your own sources words, then yes, I can see why you don't want to talk with me about it anymore. God bless Oz....

*addendum*

I counted no fewer than 10 times where words such as "possibly, probably, if, etc" was used in that short excerpt. If that does not show a basis in speculation, nothing does...

 

[mikedsjr]

Ozpen, you're absolutely right there are women missionaries who fulfill the duty as pastor around the world where they "started" a church and no Christian men were around. Bravo to them! I applaud them for such and wouldn't condemn for that. But when able men are able to take over in that area they should. If they don't it is because they aren't taught, not because Scripture doesn't say this.

 

[OzSpen]

Why are you scoffing at me?

 

[OzSpen]

Ozpen, you're absolutely right there are women missionaries who fulfill the duty as pastor around the world where they "started" a church and no Christian men were around. Bravo to them! I applaud them for such and wouldn't condemn for that. But when able men are able to take over in that area they should. If they don't it is because they aren't taught, not because Scripture doesn't say this.

If I am to believe the traditionalists in this thread, no women at any time anywhere should be starting a church, being pastor and teacher. No exceptions should be made to this according to the anti-women-in-ministry to men and women view.

Yours is a pragmatic view, but it is really a traditionalist view in disguise, i.e. when there are men to do it, the women are closed down in such ministry. I find that to be hypocritical.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

First, you may draw whatever conclusions you wish for you will anyway. Second, I think someone needs to grow a little skin. It seems a little thin. Third, have I become your enemy because I speak the truth? What does that say about both of us?

This is a red herring fallacy because you did not answer the questions I raised:

Since William and Catherine Booth were not Calvinists, does that make their views heretical?

I’m not a Calvinist. Does that make my views heretical? Do I not worship the God of the Bible because my theological conclusion is not that of your Calvinism?

Are you telling all those who are not Calvinists, including all the non-Calvinists on CF, that they are not worshipping the God of the Bible and are thus heretics?

I await your answer.

 

[Bluelion]

It still does not address my Scriptural point. God Himself made a promise, the question is, how can the "truth" changing 2,000 years later, contradicting His earlier revelation, be consistent with a God that tells the truth?

I never said it was truth. They took and eye for eye to mean you should do to other what they do to you that was law for thousands of years, yet Jesus explained it meant do on to others as you would want done to you. Jesus kept all the law and never once stoned any one, so the way they held that law was not in fact law.

They misunderstand as do you.

The word apostle means one who is sent forth,They are ambassadors of Jesus sent out by Him. Nothing any where says they had to witness the resurrection of Jesus. If that was the case i would be an apostle, I have seen Jesus and spoke with Him. I know no one would believe me,i really don't care it wasn't about them but between me and Jesus.

why don't you stop adding to God's word.

 

[Chris12]

Here me Oh called ones of God!!!!!

Where are you! There is more faith in the Risen Savior in an atheist who just laid down HIS burden at the cross!

You Must be WILLING to meet HIM half way... HE died for you, so you must also give your burden down and die HIS death so that you can rise to new life!

I am Israel. I am the Temple of the Lord your God! I am standing on the HOLY Mountain of God!

We are here... waiting for you my people!

 

[abacabb3]

I counted no fewer than 10 times where words such as "possibly, probably, if, etc" was used in that short excerpt. If that does not show a basis in speculation, nothing does...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnecHy2vyIQ

 

[abacabb3]

Yours is a pragmatic view, but it is really a traditionalist view in disguise, i.e. when there are men to do it, the women are closed down in such ministry. I find that to be hypocritical.

It is pretty consistent with the Scripture. Priscilla and Aquilla led APollos in the faith and they commended him to the Corinthian Church. Priscilla did not place herself as an authority over him once he was in the faith.

 

[abacabb3]

Again, you never answered my question. Why would God allow to the Church to be wrong about this doctrine for 1900 years if he is to lead us into all truth? Why only now people figure it out?

Jesus kept all the law and never once stoned any one, so the way they held that law was not in fact law. They misunderstand as do you.

N, I don't think so. You have a huge misunderstanding of Covenants, how Christ fulfilled the Law and the Old Covenant, and we now live according to a newer and better Covenant in which we live according to the Spirit, not according the the flesh and the Law.

And, in 1900 years of this New Covenant being in effect with the Holy Spirit leading His people, no men of God have taken your position.

It makes me think that the Holy Spirit is not with those who question the clear renderings of Scripture, and all of those men who have understood it in the same way.

why don't you stop adding to God's word.

How about you address John 16:13?

 

[Bluelion]

Again, you never answered my question. Why would God allow to the Church to be wrong about this doctrine for 1900 years if he is to lead us into all truth? Why only now people figure it out?



N, I don't think so. You have a huge misunderstanding of Covenants, how Christ fulfilled the Law and the Old Covenant, and we now live according to a newer and better Covenant in which we live according to the Spirit, not according the the flesh and the Law.

And, in 1900 years of this New Covenant being in effect with the Holy Spirit leading His people, no men of God have taken your position.

It makes me think that the Holy Spirit is not with those who question the clear renderings of Scripture, and all of those men who have understood it in the same way.



How about you address John 16:13?

your whole argument is a fallacy, Appeal to tradition how about you make a valid one?

I would be very careful when you start throwing around who you think has the Holy Spirit and who doesn't after all the called Jesus a devil and that was an unforgivable sin. and No i did not real just how it was unforgivable and if you don't know that you should not even be debating here.

Its not a game.

 

[OzSpen]

Bluelion,

after all the called Jesus a devil and that was an unforgivable sin. and No i did not real just how it was unforgivable and if you don't know that you should not even be debating here.

I don't know what you mean here. Would you please explain what you are getting at as it is zooming right past this Aussie.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It is pretty consistent with the Scripture. Priscilla and Aquilla led APollos in the faith and they commended him to the Corinthian Church. Priscilla did not place herself as an authority over him once he was in the faith.

Why don't you address the content of what I write. Your comment here is right after this quote from me:

Yours is a pragmatic view, but it is really a traditionalist view in disguise, i.e. when there are men to do it, the women are closed down in such ministry. I find that to be hypocritical.

So, you did not deal with the content and context of my quote. You are off and running with what you want to say, but without dealing with the content of what I said. Do you know what that is? It's a red herring logical fallacy. Take a read of what that means HERE. A logical fallacy uses an illogical argument. We can't have a logical discussion when you do that.

Would you please quit doing this?

Oz

 

[James Is Back]

Bluelion,



I don't know what you mean here. Would you please explain what you are getting at as it is zooming right past this Aussie.

Oz

I believe he's referring to the unpardonable sin. Where Jesus warn the Pharisees that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unpardonable sin when they accuse Him during his miracles of being devil possessed.

 

[Metal Minister]

your whole argument is a fallacy, Appeal to tradition how about you make a valid one?

How many times must we go over this before you understand that your claim of a logical fallacy is...well illogical. If we were claiming that our view was correct BECAUSE its tradition, then THAT would be appeal to tradition. We AREN'T! We're stating that because it's true (as we've shown innumerable times now) it has become a tradition. Vastly different, 180 degrees different, from your accusation.

I would be very careful when you start throwing around who you think has the Holy Spirit and who doesn't after all the called Jesus a devil and that was an unforgivable sin. and No i did not real just how it was unforgivable and if you don't know that you should not even be debating here.

Its not a game.

No, this is incorrect. If he were saying that what you were saying was of satan, instead of the Holy Spirit, then you might be correct, however he is stating that you are claiming the Holy Spirit is teaching you you're view, but that it is in error, and therefore only of you, not of God. That's not claiming God's works are actually satanic works, only that you keep claiming your view is Godly revelation, yet is incorrect.

Now, if you'd like to explain to all of us why the Holy Spirit would keep us all in the dark for 2000 years on this issue, we're all ears.

And you're right, it isn't a game to twist God's words to fit your preferred social structure.