Women preachers or pastors

StanJ said:

Indeed this message of Peters was not directed at one gender but at the whole of Believers and as such establishes a definite egalitarianism amongst believers. Just as Jesus is our Royal High priests, we are a royal priesthood. There's nothing really hard about this unless of course you're predisposed to believing that God is Not egalitarian. There are definitely roles in the New Testament, but one of them is not male-only leadership.

Click to expand...

Which ones are clearly determined as male that you see?

tickingclocker said:

Paul occasionally does make the distinction between his divinely inspired words and his personal opinions.

Click to expand...

I agree, but that's when he tells us that his opinion is his opinion. When that isn't the case, we can't presume that it's just his opinion, yet we run into a lot of people who are willing to say that all of his writings are just a personal opinion that they can simply set aside.

tickingclocker said:

It's not the main point, no, but it is part of it. Women don't suddenly decide to become clergy out of the blue. I'm sure they are more inclined to weigh their thoughts about entering the vocation more carefully than most men do. They are certainly up against more. It's not something anyone does lightly, let alone a woman.

Click to expand...

I have always said that women who think they have a call generally are sincere. I also think that they can "do the job" if that's the way people look at it.

But all of that is essentially beside the point if God has decided that some of us are to serve in certain ways and others in different ways. Advocates of gay marriages often say "but we are in love just the way you and your spouse are" and yet this isn't the issue. Neither is the sincerity or the ability to preach and administer a congregation the issue when the subject is women's ordination.

Albion said:

You're trying your best to keep that argument alive, but it's still defective.

First, we had to point out that Jesus was not speaking of some vague concept he casually called "Father" or "He;" and now we have to point out that your idea here that he merely meant something about his own (and no one else's) heavenly Father similarly fails.

If you carefully consider the Bible passage and the Lord's Prayer itself, there's no denying that 1) he was asked by his disciples how THEY should pray--it wasn't the case that they were asking him to offer his own prayer there--and 2) not only does Jesus begin with the words "OUR Father" but goes on to praise and petition that Father in terms that are unmistakably about him being the Father of all.

Click to expand...

1. I never implied that what Jesus said was "vague". In fact, I specifically made a more intense point that He alone had the full right to call God "Father". I also never implied that God is Jesus' Father "alone". You might be reading your own thoughts into what I am saying. It says just what it says. Nothing more. Nothing less. There are no surprise sucker punches waiting around any corners.

2. No, you felt the need to point something out that I already had expressed, yet you didn't grasp. There was no "had to". How many ways can I say it to you for you to see what I am saying? I understood Jesus wasn't "casually" speaking about His/the Father. Please don't put words in my mouth.

3. I wasn't speaking specifically about the Lord's Prayer at all. YOU are the one who brought that up, and keep bringing it up, again and again. Jesus calls God "Father" in many places throughout the NT. Anything wrong with Him doing so? Not to me.

Wouldn't it be better if you asked, "Are you suggesting thus and so here?", than accusing me of something I never said nor implied.

It seems we have fallen off the same page again. Moving on....

Albion said:

I have always said that women who think they have a call generally are sincere. I also think that they can "do the job" if that's the way people look at it.

But all of that is essentially beside the point if God has decided that some of us are to serve in certain ways and others in different ways. Advocates of gay marriages often say "but we are in love just the way you and your spouse are" and yet this isn't the issue. Neither is the sincerity or the ability to preach and administer a congregation the issue when the subject is women's ordination.

Click to expand...

PLEASE do not use this example to compare the subject with. Quite frankly, and I know you don't mean it as such, its insulting and demeaning. Think about it. EVERY ONE of us recognizes homosexuality is a clear and unequivocal sin before God any way you slice it, and those who choose to actively practice it are NOT Christians. WE all, however, ARE Christians here. When you compare the two, you are inadvertently implying that whoever believes women could even possibly be clergy are NOT CHRISTIAN, similar to those who practice homosexuality.

Athanasius88 said:

Allow me to reiterate beacuse it seems u would prefer to make baseless insinuations rather than read the context of the posts (remember that this was my first post in this thread and as such you have no reasonable evidence to conclude that i am 'awfully hardpressed" to anything)...
You posted earlier stating that most men fail to follow or acknowledge the command in Ephesians 5:21 'submit yourselves to one another' (my paraphrase) as if it supported your conclusions about a female's pastoral eligibility , or at the very least as if it were a scriptural proof against male headship.
The problem with this reasoning is that the very next three verses are absolutely solid in their declaration of male headship. Unless your current insinuation is that u would brand Paul as woefully inconsistent. (He in another place has already established that a woman should not have authority over a man, and that verse which has also been provided by countless others here coupled with this discourse in Ephesians 5 seems to be entirely consistent with the general position that women should not seek headship over men)
I would like to add that in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 we find the qualifications for a Bishop (pastor) and among them we find 'One that ruleth well his own house'...Paul has already established in our focal text of Ephesians 5 that wives should not be in power above their husbands, therefore how then can it be argued that here the same Paul would mean to include women in this list of qualifications?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I wasn't making insinuations, I was making conclusions, based on your comments or maybe lack thereof.
In fact, Eph 5 has nothing to do with pastoral responsibilities, it has to do with Christian households. Many try to use it to support their bias towards women not being in the ministry but it has nothing to do with women being in the ministry or a pastor or whatever you would like to use.
As far as 1st Timothy 3 is concerned, pay particular attention to vs 8 & 11, where they both start with, 'In the same way'. The qualifications were for all but because of man leads the family it is much more important that he demonstrate he can leave his family if he expects to lead a congregation. The onus is not on a woman to do the same thing because a woman doesn't lead the family. She has already learned to be in submission as God wants her to be and as such doesn't need to be admonished to run her family when that's not her responsibility to run her family. The biggest problem with this particular issue is that people misread and misrepresent what the scriptures say in regards to church offices and family responsibilities. The two cannot be intermixed because they involve two separate and distinct issues. Our responsibilities to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the New Testament are not predicated on our spouses ability to do the same thing. The Bible tells women separately to submit to the headship or authority of their husbands and the Bible tells mens separately to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Nowhere does it say that the one is dependent on the other. Men need to love their wives as Christ loved the church and regardless of whether or not their wives submit to their Authority. Women need to submit to their husbands regardless of whether or not they are loved as Christ loved the church. We are to submit to one another regardless as to whether all people do submit to us or not. Maybe you'll understand it better if you use the word defer here but regardless the concept or teaching is the same. Phil 2:3-4 further expounds on Eph 5:21.

tickingclocker said:

Which ones are clearly determined as male that you see?

Click to expand...

I may have answered this for you in post # 765.

tickingclocker said:

When you compare the two, you are inadvertently implying that whoever believes women could even possibly be clergy are NOT CHRISTIAN, similar to those who practice homosexuality.

Click to expand...

No such implication was part of my post and your conclusion is ridiculous, but I will say that I was afraid at the time that someone would come along and get it all wrong. I guess I was "hoping against hope" that because I took care to keep all ambiguities out of the message, that it wouldn't happen.

Albion said:

I have always said that women who think they have a call generally are sincere. I also think that they can "do the job" if that's the way people look at it.
But all of that is essentially beside the point if God has decided that some of us are to serve in certain ways and others in different ways. Advocates of gay marriages often say "but we are in love just the way you and your spouse are" and yet this isn't the issue. Neither is the sincerity or the ability to preach and administer a congregation the issue when the subject is women's ordination.

Click to expand...

Aside from the red herrings here what exactly is it that you're trying to say?

Albion said:

I agree, but that's when he tells us that his opinion is his opinion. When that isn't the case, we can't presume that it's just his opinion, yet we run into a lot of people who are willing to say that all of his writings are just a personal opinion that they can simply set aside.

Click to expand...

I agree. I, too, have heard a few of these 'arguments' against Paul. (One mentioned going so far as to tear all Paul said out of his bible! Ridiculous!) However, when its more a case of Jewish cultural traditions, how should we, who are NOT Jewish but do believe, supposed to interpret through one who's cultural outlook---is not ours? We have to apply the divine overriding precepts within ours. Not become "Jewish" in order to obey the Word of God. Something is bound to get lost in the translation. It happens more often than you might think, which is why I asked you why are you interacting with me here, a woman, who Paul says I should be asking my husband these spiritual questions? You technically are going against a Jewish cultural tradition mentioned by Paul in the bible--according to yours and Paul's thinking. So this could be a very good case of your not believing EVERYTHING Paul said is gospel truth. Do you realize this?

When God decrees something, there is no culture involved. Yes? But when Paul is commenting, i.e., using his culture to explain or expound upon a divinely inspired truth, are we to go precisely by Paul's cultural outlook as being somehow divine, or, is the message divine? Human culture may be influenced by the divine, but is not divine. If we should make it so, that would make Paul's culture equally or more important than God's Word! Would Paul want that?

Paul used ordinary things within His culture and nationality to expound upon the nature of God and the Gospel Message.

For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree? (Rom 11:24)

Have you ever seen a wild olive tree, let alone have it be so ordinary you wouldn't even take notice of it? (And lets not get into the rare art of tree grafting!) Paul knew the people listening to Him would "get" the concept of adoption instantly, because olive trees and grafting was a natural part of their everyday lives. Adoption was not. To us? Believers in Norway or Borneo? We must have this explained, fleshed out, in our language, at times with examples from our culture. Just because Paul used the example of olive trees, doesn't mean we are all suddenly "olive trees". (There are people who DO believe Christians become actual Jews because of this "example"!) The divine message remains more crucial than any example within any culture.

Granted, Paul often preached and wrote to churches of mixed ethnic audiences. We don't know what the actual ethnic stats were, but we can probably guess rightly that it was more often Jewish than Gentile. (Paul went to the area's Jewish leaders first.) Who would best understand Jewish cultural norms better than them? If Paul were a Norwegian speaking to Norwegians, he would have used ash or pine trees as the example... to deliver the essence of divine truth.

Albion said:

No such implication was part of my post and your conclusion is ridiculous, but I will say that I was afraid at the time that someone would come along and get it all wrong. I guess I was "hoping against hope" that because I took care to keep all ambiguities out of the message, that it wouldn't happen.

Click to expand...

I did say I didn't think you meant it negatively. I still don't. But it does seem like a rather harsh comparison.

Could you find another example to use? You're a pretty smart guy. I have faith in you! Remember, I've seen you in action whacking a few of those die-hard Mormons into dead silence!

StanJ said:

As far as 1st Timothy 3 is concerned, pay particular attention to vs 8 & 11, where they both start with, 'In the same way'. The qualifications were for all but because of man leads the family it is much more important that he demonstrate he can leave his family if he expects to lead a congregation. The onus is not on a woman to do the same thing because a woman doesn't lead the family.

Click to expand...

1 Timothy 3:8-11 are obviously the qualifications for a deacon and his wife as well. (11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.) Ordained Deacons of the Church and their families are expected to be good representatives of the Christian way of life, an otherwise qualified Deacon can be easily unqualified by the state and demeanor of his wife ....verse 12 goes on to explain how a deacon (like a pastor) must rule well his own home and be husband to one wife....bringing us yet again back to the previous point, that a woman is not permitted to properly rule and as such cannot meet the qualifications, which you seem to discount based on an entirely suppositional basis entirely devoid of scriptural support.
I find it strange that you again choose a focal text that seemingly militates against the very point you are attempting to forward..a rather poor strategy it would seem.

Athanasius88 said:

bringing us yet again back to the previous point, that a woman is not permitted to properly rule and as such cannot meet the qualifications, which you seem to discount based on an entirely suppositional basis entirely devoid of scriptural support.

Click to expand...

Which is why I've stopped interacting with him. If the Bible is not our basis for resolving these things, we are just speculating and putting forth our opinions.

Athanasius88 said:

1 Timothy 3:8-11 are obviously the qualifications for a deacon and his wife as well. (11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.) Ordained Deacons of the Church and their families are expected to be good representatives of the Christian way of life, an otherwise qualified Deacon can be easily unqualified by the state and demeanor of his wife ....verse 12 goes on to explain how a deacon (like a pastor) must rule well his own home and be husband to one wife....bringing us yet again back to the previous point, that a woman is not permitted to properly rule and as such cannot meet the qualifications, which you seem to discount based on an entirely suppositional basis entirely devoid of scriptural support.
I find it strange that you again choose a focal text that seemingly militates against the very point you are attempting to forward..a rather poor strategy it would seem.

Click to expand...

The Greek word used is ὡσαύτως (hōsautōs), and connotes; in just the same way or manner.
If you can't figure it out from this or from what I've already told you then you'll never figure it out and I really can't help you with that, only God can.
I gave you scripture support and you refuse to accept it. You eisegete your point of view and don't see how that is wrong, and my mission is not to set the inculcated free, that is God's responsibility. It may seem to you or you may want it to seem that it militates, but in actuality it supports what I am advocating. Further, it is not just this one verse that supports women being allowed to teach and lead, it is the cumulative totality of all scripture on this subject that does. Interestingly enough, I note that you said nothing about the first part of my last post. Is it your intention to simply strive about words or actually exegete scripture?

thatbrian said:

Which is why I've stopped interacting with him. If the Bible is not our basis for these things, we are just speculating and putting our opinions forth.

Click to expand...

As soon as you actually start exegeting from the Bible then I'm sure we'll have some constructive conversations but as long as you avoid addressing what I show you then nothing will be productive.

Athanasius88 said:

1 Timothy 3:8-11 are obviously the qualifications for a deacon and his wife as well. (11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.) Ordained Deacons of the Church and their families are expected to be good representatives of the Christian way of life, an otherwise qualified Deacon can be easily unqualified by the state and demeanor of his wife ....verse 12 goes on to explain how a deacon (like a pastor) must rule well his own home and be husband to one wife....bringing us yet again back to the previous point, that a woman is not permitted to properly rule and as such cannot meet the qualifications, which you seem to discount based on an entirely suppositional basis entirely devoid of scriptural support.
I find it strange that you again choose a focal text that seemingly militates against the very point you are attempting to forward..a rather poor strategy it would seem.

Click to expand...

I find it strange that you fail to mention that the bible mentions deaconesses.

1 Tim: No, like a Bishop. There is no such word in the NT as "pastor".

The word comes from a Greek word, diakonos (διάκονος), for "deacon", which means a servant or helper. In early church days there were no nurses, no hospitals. People took care of their sick and elderly at home. (Who do you think cared for such people? Women.) This is the majority of the work that deacons and deaconesses do. Help and visit the sick, care for the needy. At least that is what I have encountered in my experience in various Protestant churches.) It's also critical at times to send women appointed by the church to certain homes, or in certain situations. Most churches practice this, whether women hold an official title or not.) There are many factual instances of non-clerical and clerical deaconesses in early church history. Paul speaks of deaconess-helpers below:

Luke 2:36-38 - And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Not a deaconess but a prophetess. Was the crowd comprised of all women this widow expounded the message to?

Acts 18:26 - And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

A woman teaching a man who became an evangelist for the Gospel.

Romans 16:1-3 - I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus

Paul commends Phoebe as a servant. Servant translates diakonos, the term from which we get deacon. The original Greek says: οὖσαν διάκονον, ousan diakonon, being [the] [female] deacon of the church at Cenchreae. Does it say this title is official clergy? No, but it doesn't say it wasn't either.

Philippians 4:3 - Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

tickingclocker said:

Philippians 4:3 -....

(((whose names are in the book of life.)))

Click to expand...

Just want to remember this for later, Yhwh Willing ! ((We(ekklesia) CAN KNOW! ))

tickingclocker said:

There is no such word in the NT as "pastor".

Click to expand...

There is in Ephesians 4:11. The Greek word isποιμήν (poimēn), which is translated as Pastors in most English versions.

StanJ said:

There is in Ephesians 4:11. The Greek word isποιμήν (poimēn), which is translated as Pastors in most English versions.

Click to expand...

You're right. My mistake.

StanJ said:

The Greek word used is ὡσαύτως (hōsautōs), and connotes; in just the same way or manner.
If you can't figure it out from this or from what I've already told you then you'll never figure it out and I really can't help you with that, only God can.
I gave you scriptura support and you refuse to accept it. You eisegete your point of view and don't see how that is wrong, and my mission is not to set the inculcated free, that is God's responsibility. It may seem to you or you may want it to seem that it militates, but in actuality it supports what I am advocating. Further, it is not just this one verse that supports women being allowed to teach and lead, it is the cumulative totality of all scripture on this subject that does. Interestingly enough, I note that you said nothing about the first part of my last post. Is it your intention to simply strive about words or actually exegete scripture?

Click to expand...

i see no reason to reiterate an explanation when i have already given ample clarification..u can surely find in my earlier post where i make clear that while Ephesians 5 deals a great deal with the dynamic of Christian household, 1 Timothy 3 deals primarily with qualification for clergy, and in said qualification the proper rule of ones home is set forth quite boldly..even appended with the statement 'if he knows not how to rule his own house, how shall hw take care of the church of God?'...women, as has been formerly stated beyond all need for repitition, are not to rule the home, that is a position we are told is for the husband...i am finished debating with u because there is no exchange of idea here, only your insistent claims that honest exegesis is eisegesis while you eisegete the everloving goodness outta the texts.

tickingclocker said:

I find it strange that you fail to mention that the bible mentions deaconesses.

1 Tim: No, like a Bishop. There is no such word in the NT as "pastor".

The word comes from a Greek word, diakonos (διάκονος), for "deacon", which means a servant or helper. In early church days there were no nurses, no hospitals. People took care of their sick and elderly at home. (Who do you think cared for such people? Women.) This is the majority of the work that deacons and deaconesses do. Help and visit the sick, care for the needy. At least that is what I have encountered in my experience in various Protestant churches.) It's also critical at times to send women appointed by the church to certain homes, or in certain situations. Most churches practice this, whether women hold an official title or not.) There are many factual instances of non-clerical and clerical deaconesses in early church history. Paul speaks of deaconess-helpers below:

Luke 2:36-38 - And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Not a deaconess but a prophetess. Was the crowd comprised of all women this widow expounded the message to?

Acts 18:26 - And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

A woman teaching a man who became an evangelist for the Gospel.

Romans 16:1-3 - I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus

Paul commends Phoebe as a servant. Servant translates diakonos, the term from which we get deacon. The original Greek says: οὖσαν διάκονον, ousan diakonon, being [the] [female] deacon of the church at Cenchreae. Does it say this title is official clergy? No, but it doesn't say it wasn't either.

Philippians 4:3 - Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Click to expand...

i did not fail to mention that the Bible talks of deaconesses.. Pheobe is called a servant of the church, diakonos at its root means servant, and despite the fact that the word also came to mean a proper office in the church, it doesnt cease to mean servant, and being as she does not meet the obvious qualifications for ordination i think we can rest assured aa to which meaning is therein implied. While i feel no need to further argue what has already been set forth and established in the past 38 pages this does not mean that i have no understanding or knowledge thereof. I will not respond to pointless rehashings of Priscilla, Deborah, Hulda, or Anna (who was a prophetess and fullfilled her proper office as such without attempting to become a rabbi or a priest....food for thought ehh?.)
The office of Bishop is literally an Overseer... the same position held by the Protestant Pastor in most denominations, in otherwords (yes, like a pastor)
as for the women who labored side by side with Paul, they are called neither Pastor,Bishop,Deacon, or even Teacher... therefore there is nothing to infer here but that they labored side by side with Paul in the gospel. (which nobody has ever claimed women are restricted from doing). believe what u want and have whatever opinion u see fit, that's your prerogative, but the historical, traditional, and scripturally defensible position on this issue will remain unchanged