Women Priests/Pastors

[ItIsFinished!]

Yes we did, and yest they do exist.



It wasn’t her title that made her pastor.



It is one of the duties of a pastor.



I attend a Christian church and we have female pastors, so you are wrong.




I didn’t “slip” anything in. I made a direct statement.



I’ve already named several women who were among the leaders of the early church.



No you are debating. What you are saying is not the truth, because there are female pastors on Christian churches. They exist. That is a fact. If you choose to attend a church that does not have a female pastor that is you choice, but it does not change the truth.

Then why are you debating it?

There are no female pastors whatsoever.
And , you deflected my previous question.
Please expound upon these early female church leaders that you speak of.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

The Pope has no authority to be against Scriptures.

The pope has no authority.

 

[Der Alte]

If you look at the context Paul is instructing Timothy concerning assigning positions of authority in the Church. Right after that passage Paul says, "if a man seeks the office of an overseer{Or, bishop}, he desires a good work. The overseer therefore must be ..."

Are you aware that επισκοπης/episkopés the Greek word translated "bishop" is feminine, not masculine?And as has already been pointed out the vs. does not say "if a man" it say "if anyone."

 

[Not David]

The pope has no authority.

To the Catholics, he has one.

 

[Simplistik]

As Fr. Landry pointed out when explaining the Catholic Sacramental view:

The reason why the ordination of women is invalid is because we, who are not God, do not have the ability to change the substance of the sacraments established by God.

But the Catholic church has the power to change a commandment given by God? Fr. Landry makes quite the hypocritical statement here don't you think? While it's not a substance of the sacraments, the sabbath day is nonetheless a forever standing divine statute given by God Himself to Moses for all generations. Yet in the Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine it states:

"Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her!
—Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50."

So the Catholic church doesn't have the power to change what many view as tradition but it does have the power to change a commandment written by the very hand of God?

Interesting....

 

[Simplistik]

Pope Francis confirmed that it is impossible in the Catholic Church. So even he was pretty firm on this point dogmatically.

ahh..i rescind my previous statement then. I didn't know he addressed the issue. thanks for the info

 

[Simplistik]

A Man is the head of the Church - Jesus Christ, the God-Man, fully God, fully Man.

I mispoke, sorry...let me rephrase...the leader of a mans personal household is the man, who presides over his wife and family and so by the same token the leader of a spiritual household should be a man, who presides over his church family. You are absolutely correct in that Christ is the head of the church, which is His body. Sorry for any confusion

 

[Simplistik]

A man can be the head of his household and go to church and be under the care of a much younger priest. That could never happen in the nuclear family.

i don't understand what you're saying...if a 50 year old woman is widowed and she has a 30 year old son who, for whatever reason, lives with her, and she remarries to a 25 year old man then her husband, regardless of age, is the spiritual head of that nuclear family. Any other way you try and put the scenario together in a nuclear family environment is impossible.

In short, the age of the pastor of the head of household is irrelevant.

 

[Simplistik]

yah...that's all bologna. That's exactly the garbage Jesus chastised the disiples over when He treated women equally, and they whined.

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
Doesn't anybody think this stuff through? Boot your (male) preachers out the door when they ignore the "The law and the Prophets".

Matthew 7:12
In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

When you look at 1 Corinthians 14 and 2 Timothy 2 you have to look at the context in which these epistles were written. Ephesus and Corinth both had congregational issues and these directives are specifically given to those churches to address the issues they were having internally.

 

[Simplistik]

Impossible? I think not, my friend. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. Why? Need some evidence? Just look at the infallible Papal Bull Cantate Domino, dated 1441, which explicitly stated that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics could not be partakers of eternal life, but would go onto the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. As we all know, the modern Church no longer interprets the ancient salvation doctrine, "Outside the Church, There is no Salvation", in the strict manner as it did in 1441. Pagans, Jews, heretics (Protestants) and schismatics (Orthodox) are now considered potentially eligible for salvation, based upon the "invincible ignorance" doctrine. Hence, if an infallible decree from 1441 could be effectively reversed 500 years later, then almost anything is possible.....

Papal infallibility wasn't defined as doctrine until the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican of 1869–1870 so technically, the Pope was still considered fallible on matters of doctrine in 1441 but regardless, I do see where you're going with that.

You know I've always been curious about Papal infallibility. Say Pope Frances states an infallible doctrinal bull then the next pope interprets it differently and contradicts it with another infallible doctrinal bull...does abrogation then come into play like with Quranic teachings where the newer takes precedence over the older?

 

[Simplistik]

Paul was Jesus apostle who wrote scripture. His writings were infallible. He's higher than the Pope. To reject his teachings is to reject the teachings of Christ. A person cannot claim to be a Christian and reject Paul's writings.

The forum rules state:
Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

nobody is rejecting Pauls teachings, claiming that his writings aren't Canon or anything that goes against the rules so please don't put words in peoples mouths....

 

[Simplistik]

For my overall opinion, see my avatar.



Even if you assume that being a submissive wife is the only Biblical model, there are possibilities. She might be unmarried or a widow, for example.

Why assume a woman in ministry can't live a "biblical" home life? In what way would that be impossible?

I meant specifically in the context in which the comment was being stated. What other model is there besides women being submissive to their husbands? and I ask that specifically as it relates to a husband/wife model biblical household. I'm not referring to unmarried, widowed or anything else outside the husband/wife model biblical household as none of those would apply to the scenario I laid out.

That being said, I ask again if a woman is the leader of her church family how can she go home and be submissive to her husband whose leader of their home family? I suppose it's possible but to me it seems a contradiction.

And no, I'm not misconstruing what "submissive" means in this context at all, I understand the nuance involved with what a Biblically submissive wife is.

 

[Simplistik]

Women pastors do not exist.
However , wannabe women pastors do exist.
The Word of God is quite clear about this discussion.
Basic Scripture knowledge.
It isn't even remotely debatable.

but it is though lol. it is absolutely, 100% debatable...unless you're Catholic...but even then it's debatable.

In order for it to not even be remotely debatable you have to take a hard stance on Paul's teachings on the subject and view them as directives for the whole church and not just for those churches he was writing to

 

[Simplistik]

I would never say they are garbage. What I will say is that Paul was one bishop, not the Pope, writing to his congregations, under the circumstances that existed in those places and times 2000 years ago. Paul never had the authority to bind the whole Catholic Church until the end of days. Only Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit have that authority - and they did not on this subject.

The Popes all have greater authority than Paul, for they are Peter, and he was the chief of the apostles.

So, if the Popes and the curia decide, one day, that women may be ordained, then what Peter and the curia have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what they loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven, because Jesus said so.

Paul cannot bind the Church forever, because he was not the head of the Church, and he was not God.

This is not saying that the Apostle Paul's writings are garbage, or useless. It is saying that they are not binding law upon the Church. They are informative. They contain great insight and wisdom. They were inspired by God. But that doesn't mean they are law, and it doesn't mean they are right here and now.

Protestant Churches argue from the text of Paul, that they have no choice. The Catholic Church does not argue that because it doesn't believe that.

They call the style of Christianity practiced today "Pauline Christianity" for a reason. He walked thousands upon thousands of miles and laid the groundwork for the modern church. Paul was THE original church planter. He wrote 13 books of the NT and influenced the teachings of every church of the Apostolic era. Saying he didn't have the authority to make churchwide proclamations is ludicrous at best.

 

[Simplistik]

No , your church didn't have a female pastor.

Preaching the good news as you state , does not constitute a pastor.

According to 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 5:10 all believers are priests.

Could you please expound upon these "numerous " leadership roles in the early church that you speak of?
And , I wasn't debating, but rather speaking the truth.

There were many, just read Pauls letters...he mentions a bunch of female church leaders. There were plenty in OT times w/ the prophetesses as well and Jesus had female disciples and as already stated, Mary Magdalene is the 1st to preach the Good News of the risen Lord so if nothing else, a woman was the 1st preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There is nothing to debate here concerning the OP question.

I addressed this just a second ago but there is an absolute TON to debate on this topic..hence the debate going on in virtual perpetuity lol.

 

[Simplistik]

Paul, at first, appears conflicted until we realize that the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were actually written pseudonomously some 60 years after Paul's death.

you had me up until this point here. I have never in all my research come across anything to suggest what you're suggesting here. Could you provide some sources please?

Any organization, religious or secular and including marriage, that fails to include women in leadership roles right up to the very top is guilty of several evils. First, it is the insult to the women themselves by viewing them as less worthy. Second, it is the insult to God by denigrating half of God’s creation. If we continue to treat women in this way, then the human race is condemned to stand on one foot, see with one eye, hear with one ear and think with one half the human mind ---- and it shows.

It doesn't view women as less worthy it just sees them as having defined roles and in some religious their defined roles do not include top tier leadership roles. Even in the secular world, the percentage of women in STEM fields or in F500 CEO positions is extremely low but not because of some patriarchal grip on them but because the vast majority of women don't want to be CEO's or scientists. But I digress, the organization isn't guilty of ANY evil if the women in the organization agree with said organization's teachings. My church for example has a weekly attendance of 2000+ at my campus alone and every woman in it agrees with our doctrincal view that women should not be Pastor's or be church Elder's. So with that being said, the only time it would be considered evil is if the women want to hold a role they are barred from but that would only apply to secular roles as church's believe their doctrine is directly from God. So what your basically saying God is evil in a roundabout way by not looking at the complexity and depth of situational bias.

 

[Oldmantook]

Interesting, question.

There's undeniable scripture such as 1 Timothy 2:12 suggesting that women can't have authority over a man.

Ultimately, it comes down to if you interpret this as applying to everyone, just to the church or it's a cultural thing (such as the head covering in 1 Corinthians 2-16).


I'm not going to comment. Just here for the show.

BTW, the head covering thing is not cultural but that's another topic.

 

[Paidiske]

What other model is there besides women being submissive to their husbands? and I ask that specifically as it relates to a husband/wife model biblical household. I'm not referring to unmarried, widowed or anything else outside the husband/wife model biblical household as none of those would apply to the scenario I laid out.

Egalitarian would be the most common alternative, I would think.

That being said, I ask again if a woman is the leader of her church family how can she go home and be submissive to her husband whose leader of their home family?

I don't see why not. It's important to be clear about your roles and how they interact.

 

[Simplistik]

Except for the fact that the relevant scripture is being incorrectly translated.

1 Timothy 2:12
(12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp [αὐθεντέω] authority over the man, but to be in silence.
G831αὐθεντέω authenteō ow-then-teh'-o​

​

it's not a mistranslation, it's just the only place in scripture where it's used in this context. According to Thayers "b. in later Greek writings one who does a thing himself, the author (τῆς πράξεως, Polybius 23, 14, 2, etc.); one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to αὐτοκράτωρ an absolute master; cf. Lobeck ad Phryn., p. 120 [also as above; cf. Winers Grammar, § 2, 1 c.]); to govern one, exercise dominion over one: τινός, 1 Timothy 2:12."

I suppose the correct aspect to question is the adverb associated with "authority." The KJV has it as "usurp" whereas the Interlinear and Amplified have it as "exercise" and the GNT has it as "have. The word Usurp has connotations of the authority being unauthorized or forcefully taken whereas the others simply hold it to be an act he doesn't allow.

 

[Simplistik]

As for salvation status, men and women are equal, but not in terms of role.

I agree 100%. In the Kingdom of God, men and women are seen as equals in the eyes of God but both have separately defined, distinct, individual roles and responsibilities in the Kingdom.