Is it Wrong for Women to Preach in Church?

Strong in Him · Aug 15, 2017

RDKirk said:
In light of Paul's amazing proclamations of the importance of women in spreading the Gospel (and don't overlook how often Paul's disciple Luke explicitly mentions "and also women"), what we need to do is more closely examine what Paul must have meant (and not meant) by "teach."

I've already gone over that in this thread, I think. What Paul was saying is that he did not permit men to be disciples under a woman (nor, for that matter, a woman discipled under a man).

Maybe he didn't permit it, but that is not the same as saying that God has forbidden, and would never allow, it.

Strong in Him · Aug 15, 2017

RDKirk said:
Do you think that's what I said? Really?

No - hence my question, "are you saying?"

RDKirk said:
Did God raise worshippers from stones? Or didn't He use weak and disobedient men instead?

No, he didn't raise worshippers from stones, but he could have done, and had everyone stopped praising God, as the Pharisees wanted, he might have done.

My point was that if it was God's will that only men be allowed to lead churches, he could raise up, or create, men who were willing to be obedient - rather than compromise his own will and command.
This topic was one of the first debates I became involved in on these forums. Someone said then that it was a disgrace to God that women were preaching his word, and I replied, "well why don't you pray that he will call, and challenge, more men to hear this calling? Why not ask God to raise up a whole army of male preachers/pastors so that he won't have to make do with second best, and women won't be needed?"
As far as I know, that challenge was never accepted.

RDKirk said:
Doesn't God in His grace permit men to fall short of His perfection because of their weaknesses?

Jesus answered, "It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not this way from the beginning."

God may have allowed divorce because men wanted to be free from their wives, and divorce was preferable to murder.
That's not at all the same as saying that God allows, calls and actively chooses women to preach his word - as he did with Mary Magdalene, for example - because it is his will that they do that.

Brokenhill · Aug 17, 2017

Strong in Him said:
IF women's silence is a command - because it is in God's word, and Paul was inspired by the Spirit, then it's a command from God, is his will and what he wants. So it should have happened everywhere.
To say "God has commanded women to be silent for these reasons ........ EXCEPT when he tells them to pray, prophesy and worship", is inconsistent and confusing.

It's not inconsistent nor confusing. Exceptions exist throughout scripture. In the OT killing a human was punishable by death, except if the killing was an accident--then the killer could flee to a city of refuge. Jesus taught that divorce is a sin in all cases except in the case of adultery.

Also, rarely in scripture is something spelled out in it's entirety, detail by detail. Take the plan of salvation for example (although you may disagree with this too...):
There are multiple passages that deal with salvation (our sins being forgiven from God + our place in the body of Christ). There are some passages that just mention faith or others that just mention grace or other passages mentioning a work (such as "if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive you" -Mat 6:14-15).
Salvation consists of the following things God's grace, Jesus' sacrifice, hearing God's word, believing in it, confessing Christ, repenting from sins, being baptized (in water), and being faithful unto death.
ALL those things are involved in your salvation/necessary to be right with God. But they are found throughout the NT! They are not all neatly found in once place.
(See Eph 2:4-5 + 1 Cor. 15:1-8 + Acts 16:31 + Mat 10:32 + Acts 11:18 + Acts 2:38 + 1 Peter 2:2).

Likewise it is not unreasonable that multiple passages are needed to be understood before coming to a conclusion about women's roles in the church.
Just because 2 passages contain messages that are seemingly contradictory or confusing at first glance, doesn't mean that they don't make sense. They don't ACTUALLY contradict. It just means there is more study to be had.

This topic is always being discussed somewhere on CF; I've been in dozens of discussions.
To be honest, it's very unlikely that I will change my mind, because:
a) The Scriptures that are quoted to "prove" that women cannot be ordained, or even preach, don't say what people claim that they do.
b) A lot of the arguments given either don't make sense or are illogical - and God is a God of order and logic, and gave us minds and the ability to reason and decide.
c) People have insisted that they take, and we are to take, these Scriptures literally - and yet they have a more liberal attitude to other Scriptures.
d)If we DID take those Scriptures literally, they would contradict other Scriptures.
e) I know women who have been called by God to be preachers or Ministers/Pastors. They have done this with the permission and under the authority of the Lord and the church. They have not been rebuked, corrected or removed by God for "sin"; in many cases they have been, and are, a blessing to the church. I KNOW how God has called me to preach, and I want only to do hos will.
I put this reason last in the list because some people think that I am in favour of this only because of my feeling or experience.

a) It's best to take scripture at face value, within it's immediate context + letting other passages in the bible to help decipher any given teaching.
b) No personal offense, but your argument is confusing to me. You mention women "feeling" they are called to certain ministries.
Well, I could say that I feel called by God to persuade you with the scriptures to agree with Paul that taught women are to be under authority of men in the church.
Obviously both of us can't be right...so any "feelings" we have are of little regard at the end of the day. Scripture must interpret scripture. The best thing we can do is just accept it EVEN if it doesn't seem 100.00% clear on all the hows/whats/whys.
c) Humans are inherently flawed, so it's not wise to lack clarity or lose faith over something because of some persons' inconsistencies. Ultimately, we all just need to read the word and let is convict us with what it says.
d) They do not contradict other scriptures.
e) I understand that you have more than just feelings for why you do what you do. Just as you say you KNOW you are doing the right thing, I KNOW that I am doing the right thing by telling you you're wrong.
But like I just said we both can't be right.
And honestly, i'm not trying to be arrogant. It just saddens me how much secular society has crept into and influenced the church--to the point that a lot of places aren't even "the church" anymore because of how far they have strayed.
This is just speculation, but if we were both born 200 years ago in an english speaking country then we would probably have a more similar understanding of this topic.

It's NOT proof because Scripture doesn't say that, Jesus didn't teach it and there are Scriptural examples of women teaching, preaching the word and leading men. God himself raised up women to be prophets, evangelists, judge over the nation, deaconesses, and deacons, in church. In Scripture, men were taught, healed, restored, saved from death and given the Good News about Jesus, because a woman told them, was used to bring about their healing or imparted that knowledge to them. God did not establish an "eternal principle" about a woman's role, and then break his own principle by allowing women to do the thing that he did not want them to do.

PROOF would be if Scripture said, "it is God's will that no woman should be allowed to preach the Gospel - ever." Or "Jesus said, 'go into the world .... preach, teach and make disciples - but women don't need to obey this'." OrJ ""Jesus said, 'I will build my church and the gates of hell will never be able to overcome it - UNLESS a woman takes a leadership role, then you're on your own'."
If the Bible said this, if Jesus had taught, and shown by example, that women were never to preach or lead; if God had clearly said, in words we could all understand, that no woman would ever be allowed to be a Minister in his church, and NEVER chosen women to take his word to others; that would be proof.

Saying, "well Paul said that Adam was created first, so that must mean that God chose the man, and all men, to be in a position of leadership and authority", is interpretation; not proof.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Although I will repeat that I believe women can teach non-believers...the difference arises when the local church as a whole meets together to worship, because scripture seems to imply such.

1) Jesus came to die for our sins, to release us from the curse of eternal death and reconcile us to God.
2) Part of the woman's curse was "in pain you will bear children" (or similar words). Yet for some women, childbirth is pretty painless - due to drugs/Cesarians etc - whereas other women don't have children at all. If you are childless or have a pain free labour, does that mean you are no longer under God's curse?
3) We CAN BE forgiven for, and set free from, our sin and the fear of eternal death. We still sin sometimes, and may suffer due to the sins of others, but we have been set free from slavery to sin, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:17, Romans 6:20; Galatians 5:1; Revelation 1:5.

1 Cor. 15:20-26
"But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished IS DEATH."

Yes, salvation, the gift of eternal life is here NOW. But death has not been abolished yet (the 1st death). The curse (which the 1st death is apart of) is not abolished yet...we still see people die. The judgment will bring us to "the 2nd death" OR eternal life. We are not to the judgement yet.

All women have pain in childbirth if they don't use drugs. Just because modern medicine offsets pain doesn't mean that the curse doesn't apply. When things occur naturally (the way God intended/design) then women have pain.
Regardless, women also experience pain DURING PREGNANCY and when their contractions start, before they make it to the hospital.

Unrelated Note: I'm glad we discussed this because it taught me, according to strong's lexicon, that this paint we're talking about in childbirth can also mean the entire pregnancy process.

So why did he CHOOSE a woman to be the first witness to his resurrection? Why did he tell her to go into a roomful of men, proclaim the Good News and give them a message from him?
Why did he allow the woman at the well to go back to her town and tell the men that she had found the Messiah?
Why did he allow Mary to sit at his feet - which is where student Rabbis sat when they were learning from their masters - and say that she had chosen "the better way"? Women weren't allowed to learn, at that time; Jesus allowed it.
Why did the early church allow women to be in the upper room before Pentecost, Acts 1:14, to teach, Acts 18:26 and be deacons, deaconesses and co workers for the Gospel, Romans 16:1-2,6,7,12;Philippians 4:2-3?

The scenarious you're mentioning aren't in the same context of 1 Cor. 11 or 1 Tim 2. Paul was preaching about CHURCH ORDER. The church didn't even fully exist UNTIL AFTER JESUS DIED--before that was the transition period. So the things that occurred in Jesus time do not necessarily hold weight over this topic because it's a different context.

All men and women that are in the body of Christ are "servants" (diakonos) of God, but there is an OFFICE of deaconship and an OFFICE of eldership (1 Tim. 3 + Titus 1) which explain they MUST BE "THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE". Only a husband can be a male!
So even if there is not verse specifically mentioning that "women shall not be preachers over men within the congregation"--it is NOT DEBATABLE that only men can be elders + deacons, because scripture is specific!

That's an interpretation. I am certain that if God had not meant women to teach, preach or have any authoritative role over a man, EVER, he would have said so clearly, and made his will and commands clear to us. Further more, he would not have chosen any woman to work for him/preach is word - EVER.

Did you read that portion of Matthew 19?

Jesus talking about divorce reminds me of how the Israelites wanted a king to rule over them "like the other nations"...but this angered God because He wanted to be their only king. However, God was patient with them and allowed them to harden their hearta and gave them a king (in His way, though).

Going back to Matthew 19 Jesus talks about divorce/remarriage in light of the Israelite CULTURE vs. WHAT CREATION TAUGHT.

No, it doesn't.
Who gives the elders their authority? God, and then the church. All authority comes from God, and Jesus was given ALL authority after his ascension, Matthew 28:18.
The authority, gifts and power come from God; the church recognises that it is God who has called a person and given them gifts, authority and power to preach his word and/or lead his people.
All is from God. It is God's calling, God's work, God's kingdom, God's authority, God who gives gifts, and God who has created us in his image, saved us and made us his children. We all serve God in the power of the Spirit; having God himself inside us.

I 100% agree.

But what you don't realise is that God's authority was what created the structures of everything else.

God created a family structure.

God created a societal structure with the Isrealites.

God created a structure for the church in its operations.

Some of our service in God's kingdom is individualistic...and we answer only to God, but there is also the context of the family + the church in which structure exists (created by God) that we must obey. Wives must respect + submit to their husbands...not because of society, but because that was God's family pattern He created. In line with that, you have the church that is led by male elders.

But the principle's the same.
Would the people in Galatia who read Paul's letters have rushed to find his cloak to take it to him? No; they would have recognised that that was a personal instruction given to Timothy.

We should be able to see clearly that Paul mentioning something like this in passing is totally different than when he's giving spiritual guidance and commandments from God. 2000 years later, it's impossible to bring Paul's cloak to him. On the contrary, it's still possible today to fulfull God's gender roles in marriage + the church.

Would the church in Rome have obeyed his "command" that women should not teach? It's difficult to see how, when they had a letter from him that positively praised women for all their hard work in spreading the Gospel. Would the church at Philippi obeyed this? Unlikely - not only did they have deaconesses, but their very church was co founded by a woman; Lydia, Acts 16:11-15.

Women spreading the gospel to the lost is different than exercising authority over SAVED men.

I'm not sure if women gathering at a river to pray in this context was a church, especially since Lydia wasn't saved yet (only after Paul taught her she became baptized and was put into the Body of Christ). Also, scripture only mentions women here, so there seems to have been no men to have authority over in the first place.

Would the church in Corinth, who were rebuked for drunkenness, have read Paul's words to Timothy and said, "see; we ARE allowed to drink"? I am certain they would have recognised, also, that Paul was writing a personal instruction to Timothy.
Did the church of the NT read the Jewish law and say, "we must do this today; it's Scriptural"? No, they taught that circumcision was a) only for God's people and b) only given for a time; that the law was a shadow of what was to come and that Jesus fulfilled the law.

Sure, the law in one sense had passed away with the resurrection of Christ. However, the early church regularly read the OT:
1 Tim. 3:16 "16 All Scripture is [h]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
That's talking about the OT, because the NT as we know it was not fully formed or recognized as a complete work yet.

Drinking has never been condemned. It's always only drunkeness. So there's no contradiction.

No, we are told not to adopt the same standards and morals as the world; not to conform to it, and not to love it as though this world is all there is.
We are told to be salt and light in the world, Matthew 5:13-16; salt, in a corrupt world that needs cleansing, and light in the darkness.
We are commanded to treat one another as we would lie to be treated ourselves, Matthew 12:7, and to love as Jesus loved us, John 13:34.

How does the teaching, "when a woman is in church they must sit down, shut up and not preach, or teach, the word of God", obey that?
How is the church leading by example and showing God's love and acceptance for everyone, if it's basically saying, "never mind about equality, or laws which include and recognise the gifts, and rights of women; if you join US, you will leave your gifts, personality and calling at the door, submit to male teaching and leadership, and do as you're told, without question"? How is that message Good News for women, and how does it square with Jesus' treatment of them?

Click to expand...

Roles can be different and yet equality still remains. You have the WORLD's definition of equality.

Women have plenty to do in the church or just in general as Christians and they can make a HUGE impact--especially when they're submissive!
They can help with teaching younger women, children, they can show the humilty of Christ by their submission, they can sing encouraging messages to their brothers/sisters in Christ, they can visit widows and orphans, shut-ins, make + take meals to people, etc. etc.

1 Peter 3: "1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [a]respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear."

Titus 2: "3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

(Oh and here's an example of a women being in a position of servitude in Jesus' time:
Luke 4:39 And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on them."
This always impresses me...she was severely sick and the first thing she does when she's healed is goes back to serving!)

He didn't teach it as a general principle; this is evident by the way he allowed women to help him, to do things, and commended the fr their hard work for the Gospel.
There may well have been women in his churches who spent time chattering during the services and disrupting them. This seems to have been the case in Corinth; in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says that if they want to learn anything they should "ask their OWN husbands at home". He would not have needed to say that if women were already doing that and were silent in the service. Of course asking questions of those around you is disruptive, and calling out, or questioning the speaker is disruptive and a challenge to their authority. So don't do it, Paul says. God is a God of order; there is a time and a place for challenges and questions.

This is very far from saying, "no women can speak in church to read/preach the Bible, give testimony or prophesy - anywhere at any time, EVER."
Apart from anything else, 1 Tim 2:12 says "A woman" not "ALL women".

Click to expand...

Of course they were helpers, but not in the capacity that modern women "help"!
If God wanted women to start + lead churches, and preach and exercise authroity over men...then YOU SHOW me what scripture SPECIFICALLY mentions these types of things.
It doesn't exist...you are just giving me CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, which is far outweighted by the DIRECTNESS of Paul's teachings.

Brokenhill · Aug 17, 2017

Dave-W said:
And again I would still hold this as authoritative/binding per Matt 16.19 and 18.18. "Bind and loose" was first century religious jargon meaning to make the rules for how to walk in obedience. Our Lord gave that to His apostles (and I include Paul as the 13th apostle) So what Paul wrote was and is binding; EVEN IF he says it is only his opinion.

I understand where you're coming from but I dont see scripture explicitly stating that.

I think that as a Christian sometimes we have options that are beyong "right" and "wrong" sometimes things are "good", "better", and "best". So when I see Paul talking about his Godly wisdom opinions...to me those would be the "best" options but not necessarily required...and certainly not so when he says something in the opposite direction of what he previously stated like "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". So obviously staying unmarried was not BINDED--it was suggested.

But i'm not sure how this discussion is on topic any more. Sorry. Not that i'm not willing to discuss, but maybe this isn't the right place?

Brokenhill · Aug 17, 2017

Archivist said:
No Scriptural proof that Paul was addressing on a specific city? His letter was to the Church at Corinth. Paul probably had no clue that his letter would be circulated far beyond that city--he had no idea that someday his letter would be compiled in something called The Bible. As to the timeframe, given that Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime he would have had no idea that anyone would be reading his letter 2000 years after it was written.

I know someone already started discussing this with you but I just wanted to make sure scripture was quotes + to make a comment.

Col 4:16 "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea."

1 Cor. 16:1 "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also."

Rev 22:18-19 "18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

______

If we take the idea of "Paul wrote specifically to certain churches for certain reasons and they only apply to them..." well then NONE of the NT would apply to us today because nothing was written specifically to us.

Clearly God's plan was to have these copied and circulated...and just because 1 congregation had a problem that nobody else did--whose to say that other congregation wouldn't have that same problem in the future!

And if we look at the modern church we see that we have just as many problems as they had...so we need all of the NT writings to change us!

Dave-W · Aug 17, 2017

Brokenhill said:
I understand where you're coming from but I dont see scripture explicitly stating that.

Scripture does not explain what was culturally understood.

Archivist · Aug 17, 2017

Brokenhill said:
I know someone already started discussing this with you but I just wanted to make sure scripture was quotes + to make a comment.

Col 4:16 "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea."

1 Cor. 16:1 "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also."

Rev 22:18-19 "18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

______

If we take the idea of "Paul wrote specifically to certain churches for certain reasons and they only apply to them..." well then NONE of the NT would apply to us today because nothing was written specifically to us.

Clearly God's plan was to have these copied and circulated...and just because 1 congregation had a problem that nobody else did--whose to say that other congregation wouldn't have that same problem in the future!

And if we look at the modern church we see that we have just as many problems as they had...so we need all of the NT writings to change us!

This was already discussed. We do know that Paul intended that at least one of his letters be shared. But, we have nothing in Scripture saying that Paul intended that every letter be shared. If Paul was addressing a specific situation at a specific church, he may have intended that letter to be seen by only that church.

Strong in Him · Aug 17, 2017

Brokenhill said:
We should be able to see clearly that Paul mentioning something like this in passing is totally different than when he's giving spiritual guidance and commandments from God. 2000 years later, it's impossible to bring Paul's cloak to him.

Obviously.
My point was that, at the time, other churches who read his letter to Timothy would also have known that Paul was not instructing THEM to rush over and look for his cloak. They would have read his letter, for example to the church at Philippi, and known what was general Christian teaching and what was special instruction only to a local church. They wouldn't have slavishly applied every word of his letters to their own circumstances.

Brokenhill said:
Women spreading the gospel to the lost is different than exercising authority over SAVED men.

1). The Scripture doesn't say "saved men", it says that Paul does not allow a woman to have authority over a man. Why is it ok to say to an unsaved man, "Scripture says if you do this you are sinning against God", but not ok to say that to a saved man? Who are we to know if someone is saved or not - and why did John say that if we see someone sinning we are to correct them?
2) It doesn't even say "have authority", but "usurp" - i.e to grab violently by force. Since God gives authority and the church recognises it; how can a woman do this?
3) What is "having authority over"?
Is it writing a book on a subject they are knowledgeable about, that the man then chooses to buy?
Is it debating with, and correcting someone, on a forum?
Is it correcting teaching, eg if a man quotes Scripture but gets the wrong verse, or holds an unscripturable belief?

Brokenhill said:
I'm not sure if women gathering at a river to pray in this context was a church, especially since Lydia wasn't saved yet (only after Paul taught her she became baptized and was put into the Body of Christ).

It doesn't matter if they were saved or not. The women met regularly for prayer, they met with Paul and he shared the Gospel and baptised them when they believed. Paul stayed with them a while and then moved on, leaving a core group of new believers. People = the church, not buildings. We are not told that Paul said, "I can only teach/convert you if your husbands are present or with their approval".
Later, in another letter, he taught about wives who had unbelieving husbands, and didn't say "you're under their authority and cannot believe until they do."

Brokenhill said:
Sure, the law in one sense had passed away with the resurrection of Christ. However, the early church regularly read the OT:
1 Tim. 3:16 "16 All Scripture is [h]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
That's talking about the OT, because the NT as we know it was not fully formed or recognized as a complete work yet.

Yes they did - and they well knew the OT examples of Deborah, Huldah, Miriam etc. But where does the OT say "women cannot do these things"?

Brokenhill said:
Drinking has never been condemned. It's always only drunkeness. So there's no contradiction.

I never said there was; I was pointing out that we don't apply all the words that Paul wrote to other people, to us.

Brokenhill said:
Roles can be different and yet equality still remains. You have the WORLD's definition of equality.

No, I have God's.
Men AND women were created by him, in his image.
He has saved men AND women and made us his children and heirs of his inheritance.
Men AND women can receive his gifts and Holy Spirit.

Brokenhill said:
Women have plenty to do in the church

Yes, and if God calls us to preach, teach or lead; we can do that too.

Brokenhill said:
(Oh and here's an example of a women being in a position of servitude in Jesus' time:
Luke 4:39 And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on them."
This always impresses me...she was severely sick and the first thing she does when she's healed is goes back to serving!).

Of course; she was ministered to and healed by the Lord and immediately serves the Lord by doing what she is called to do.
No difference here - except that some seem to insist that women cannot serve the Lord by being in leadership roles.

Brokenhill said:
If God wanted women to start + lead churches, and preach and exercise authroity over men...then YOU SHOW me what scripture SPECIFICALLY mentions these types of things.

No, you show me what Scripture specifically says "it is not God's will for women to speak in church" or "women clergy is an abomination to the Lord" or "the Lord has NOT given, and will never give, the gift of Pastor to a woman", Ephesians 4:11.

If you can't, then YOU are making the supposition that Scripture says "Teach, preach and baptise ..... unless you are a woman."

Strong in Him · Aug 17, 2017

I don't know where the first half of my post went; very annoying.
I may write it out again sometime.

Brokenhill · Aug 19, 2017

Archivist said:
This was already discussed. We do know that Paul intended that at least one of his letters be shared. But, we have nothing in Scripture saying that Paul intended that every letter be shared. If Paul was addressing a specific situation at a specific church, he may have intended that letter to be seen by only that church.

I stated that I realized it was already discussed. But there's not enough scripture present in much of this thread (there lies the reason why there is conflict in the first place).

I'm currently studying the canonization of the NT, but without even getting into that, the fact that we have a compilation that we call the NT is a bounty of evidence that these letters were shared for a purpose, regardless if Paul specifically asked for every letter to be shared.

But Paul went out to preach the gospel and establish congregations throughout the region...so any teaching he gave in the context of the gospel or of Christian living or of church order would be applicable to all peoples.

Brokenhill · Aug 19, 2017

Strong in Him said:
I don't know where the first half of my post went; very annoying.
I may write it out again sometime.

We're clearly not budging, so we may as well stop.

Although if one of the things you commented on was salvation, I think it would be good to discuss, because in in a sense it's precursor to this discussion.

Noxot · Aug 19, 2017

if you look through a microscope you will see the tiny remains of a years ago perished horse that was beaten so much that only microscopic portions of it remain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

once again, the Lord told us to "test the spirits" and this is something I feel that many do not do enough and that I suppose I must try even more to do. God have mercy on us all.

people want to live by laws because they don't want to or don't know how to live by Gods Spirit. there is a real danger in being free but the comfortable slavery of authoritarianism is a sin again God. why do so many people always try to turn everything into a damned legal battle? souls are far more precious and yet it is by Gods grace that we stumble over Christ, yet so few seem to want to pay much attention to anything at all. wake up, wake up and reason with God instead of blindly following things you don't understand.

Strong in Him · Aug 20, 2017

Brokenhill said:
We're clearly not budging, so we may as well stop.

Although if one of the things you commented on was salvation, I think it would be good to discuss, because in in a sense it's precursor to this discussion.

It was.
Jesus told us how to receive eternal life, and that no one comes to him except through the Father. He also said that his blood would be shed for the sins of the world.
Those who wrote the epistles explored, and explained, what salvation meant and how it affected our lives.

But salvation's not a command from God.
Those things that God commanded the Jews, for example, are all clearly explained, in detail. They knew exactly what God wanted, they knew the covenant and that they would be breaking his law if they did/ate certain things. They were told to write God's laws on their foreheads, and teach them to their children. They knew that they would be punished if they disobeyed his laws and find peace and prosperity if they kept them - and they did. When they had judges and Godly leaders, they kept his law; when they didn't, they went astray, started worshipping idols and ended up in exile.
God makes his will and intentions very plain, and if he wants us to obey him; he tells us.

When God wanted Noah to build an ark, Moses to build the ark of the covenant and Solomon to build the temple, they were told, in exact detail, how to do it. Measurements were given, the kind of wood, material and decoration were stipulated. In the case of Noah, the ark was to keep his chosen people, and various animals, safe. In the case of Moses and Solomon, God was instructing them how they should worship him. The ark of the covenant represented God's presence; when anyone who was not one of God's people received it, illness and "bad luck" followed. When someone touched it who wasn't authorised to touch it; they died.
God told people how he wanted them to worship him. Jesus told us that the Father wants us to worship in Spirit and in truth, John 4:24.
After he was raised from the dead, he taught his disciples for 40 days, Acts 1:3. If it had been absolutely vital to God that the church which he established and which would grow, was NEVER led by a woman, or had female preachers; he would have told the disciples and made his will on the matter VERY plain. But he didn't, and we are not told that this was ever a problem for the early church. They debated circumcision, keeping the law and the place of Gentiles; but never the place, or acceptance of, women. Women were in the upper room before Pentecost, praying with everyone else. Women helped to spread the Gospel, taught, prophesied and worked hard. Women were, and always have been, used by God to proclaim his word to others - they've been sent out to the mission field, made disciples and founded churches.
But in spite of all this, some people teach that when we all go into a building, which we call a church, and worship God together, women need to sit still, be quiet and not use any of their gifts to worship God.

Noxot · Aug 20, 2017

paul should have used the spiritual symbol of "child ought not to have authority over man" rather than women since they are basically the same symbol. but I think that God wanted to test his people with a rod of iron and see who would stumble over the cornerstone, in order to draw out any latent imperfections that a person might have so they may be brought to the light and made clean.

cause Jesus is sometimes like "if I had not came they would not have sin" but he is very good and not only test the reality of the situation we might be in, but he test the potential situation we could find our flawed selves fallen into and I attribute this to God wanting us to be perfect.

the natural goodness of God himself already places a judgment upon us because we have to compare ourselves to God. so it is natural that people who are imperfect sinners would stumble over his word. so he might as well make a nice game out of it and make it less severe than the OT rules had. cause people were doing all kinds of crazy stuff due to the contemplative gift that moses had. what a strange culture they had. and I guess moses was constrained by the peoples of that time as well, they were a barbaric peoples in some ways.

Sammy-San · Aug 20, 2017

-57 said:
It had to do with the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden.

is it a punishment for original sin, or a way to prevent further deception.
i believe its neither.

Brokenhill · Aug 26, 2017

Noxot said:
if you look through a microscope you will see the tiny remains of a years ago perished horse that was beaten so much that only microscopic portions of it remain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

once again, the Lord told us to "test the spirits" and this is something I feel that many do not do enough and that I suppose I must try even more to do. God have mercy on us all.

people want to live by laws because they don't want to or don't know how to live by Gods Spirit. there is a real danger in being free but the comfortable slavery of authoritarianism is a sin again God. why do so many people always try to turn everything into a damned legal battle? souls are far more precious and yet it is by Gods grace that we stumble over Christ, yet so few seem to want to pay much attention to anything at all. wake up, wake up and reason with God instead of blindly following things you don't understand.

I slightly agree in the sense that we can become blind to God's priorities for us if we're only ever reading scripture and debating it.
Luke 6:49
"But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

We are to be hearers and doers. And yes, evangelism is too underrated today (as i'm guilty of and currently working on).

HOWEVER, you seem to overlook (or underrate) some key principals in Christianity:

John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." [some versions read "study" instead of "be diligent"]

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The focus with analyzing and discussing scripture should ultimately be to end up at a point where we are "zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14)

___

Also, considering the saving of souls as you mentioned, we have to know HOW to allow God to save us and then after that to know HOW to save others.
The devil has so greatly deceived the modern "church"--convincing millions that faith in Christ is the only thing they need to do to be saved.
Jesus commanded BAPTISM for the remission of sins in addition to FAITH, REPENTANCE, CONFESSION, and being mindful of the commandments of God such as forgiving others.

There are a lot of spiritual people with GOOD INTENTIONS...but good intentions are not enough.

John 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers."

TRUTH involves HOW we seek + worship God.

Brokenhill · Aug 26, 2017

Strong in Him said:
It was.
Jesus told us how to receive eternal life, and that no one comes to him except through the Father. He also said that his blood would be shed for the sins of the world.
Those who wrote the epistles explored, and explained, what salvation meant and how it affected our lives.

Jesus said "No one comes to the FATHER except by ME". But i'm assuming that's what you meant.

The apostles were commanded to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15). So what the apostles taught regarding salvation was authorized by Jesus.

But salvation's not a command from God.
Those things that God commanded the Jews, for example, are all clearly explained, in detail. They knew exactly what God wanted, they knew the covenant and that they would be breaking his law if they did/ate certain things. They were told to write God's laws on their foreheads, and teach them to their children. They knew that they would be punished if they disobeyed his laws and find peace and prosperity if they kept them - and they did. When they had judges and Godly leaders, they kept his law; when they didn't, they went astray, started worshipping idols and ended up in exile.
God makes his will and intentions very plain, and if he wants us to obey him; he tells us.

God clearly teaches salvation. Because we have free will salvation is not coerced on us...however, if we choose to desire God's salvation, He has commanded PLAINLY how to be right with Him.

When God wanted Noah to build an ark, Moses to build the ark of the covenant and Solomon to build the temple, they were told, in exact detail, how to do it. Measurements were given, the kind of wood, material and decoration were stipulated. In the case of Noah, the ark was to keep his chosen people, and various animals, safe. In the case of Moses and Solomon, God was instructing them how they should worship him. The ark of the covenant represented God's presence; when anyone who was not one of God's people received it, illness and "bad luck" followed. When someone touched it who wasn't authorised to touch it; they died.
God told people how he wanted them to worship him. Jesus told us that the Father wants us to worship in Spirit and in truth, John 4:24.

I'm glad you brought up John 4:24--TRUTH is equally emphasized with SPIRIT. Truth = OBJECTIVE.
Whatever Jesus taught was objective truth. And He taught us HOW to be saved and how to seek/worship Him/the Father--in enough detail!

After he was raised from the dead, he taught his disciples for 40 days, Acts 1:3. If it had been absolutely vital to God that the church which he established and which would grow, was NEVER led by a woman, or had female preachers; he would have told the disciples and made his will on the matter VERY plain. But he didn't, and we are not told that this was ever a problem for the early church. They debated circumcision, keeping the law and the place of Gentiles; but never the place, or acceptance of, women. Women were in the upper room before Pentecost, praying with everyone else. Women helped to spread the Gospel, taught, prophesied and worked hard. Women were, and always have been, used by God to proclaim his word to others - they've been sent out to the mission field, made disciples and founded churches.
But in spite of all this, some people teach that when we all go into a building, which we call a church, and worship God together, women need to sit still, be quiet and not use any of their gifts to worship God.

If by "some people" you mean me, then you (at least partially) misunderstand what i'm saying.

Regardless, let's stick to salvation at this time.

Are you saved?
How did you answer God's call to salvation?
He detailed out for us how to be saved.

Strong in Him · Aug 27, 2017

Brokenhill said:
Jesus said "No one comes to the FATHER except by ME". But i'm assuming that's what you meant.

Yeah, that's what I meant; sorry.

Brokenhill said:
The apostles were commanded to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15). So what the apostles taught regarding salvation was authorized by Jesus.

I know.

Brokenhill said:
God clearly teaches salvation. Because we have free will salvation is not coerced on us.

I know.
My whole point was that when God commanded his people, when he gave them his law, the 10 commandments and made a covenant with them, he made it very clear to them. The commandments were written, by him, on stone and carried around in the ark of the Covenant. Joshua told people to write them on their foreheads and teach them to their children. God wanted his people to keep his commands, so he was VERY clear about what those commands were. If the nation did not keep his law/commands, they were punished. So God made sure they knew what the laws were.

You said that salvation, the cross, eternal life etc is written about throughout the NT; it is not all in one place, taught by one person. I think, correct me if I am wrong, you were saying that similarly, church governance/structure is taught in various places in the NT and not spelled out in detail by Jesus.

But I still believe that if it was a command from God that his church have a certain structure and women were to be excluded from that, and from authority; it would have been clearly taught so that it could be understood and obeyed. Some churches say "we see no Scriptural evidence that a woman may not preach the word of God and be a Minister/Pastor in a church" - are they all mistaken, or just disobedient?
Jesus came to show us God, because he was God, to show us God's love, by dying on the cross, and to teach us about God, his ways, his laws and his kingdom. If part of that had been "when I build my church, women will NEVER be in preaching/leadership roles", or "when I send my Spirit to give gifts he will NEVER give women certain gifts" - he would have said so.
Furthermore, he would not have broken his Fathers commands by choosing women to receive and preach his word, tell others about him, be the first to witness his resurrection and to take that Good News to a group of men who were in hiding and believed it was all over.

Jesus could quite easily have shown, by his words and actions, that having female preachers and leaders was against his Father's will and command; he didn't.
Paul was learned, and very intelligent, and could have quite easily written to ALL his congregations, "I have received this command from the Lord, a woman is NEVER to become a preacher/minister - no matter for how many years the church continues, or in whatever culture". He didn't say that.

Brokenhill said:
I'm glad you brought up John 4:24--TRUTH is equally emphasized with SPIRIT. Truth = OBJECTIVE.
Whatever Jesus taught was objective truth. And He taught us HOW to be saved and how to seek/worship Him/the Father--in enough detail!

Yes of course he did.
And he could just as easily have shown us how to set up, manage and lead a church, in detail; the gender of the Ministers, what they were to wear and so on. But he didn't.
I don't think it likely that - if the gender of Ministers and preachers in his church was an absolute command from God - Jesus would have been silent on the matter.

Brokenhill said:
If by "some people" you mean me, then you (at least partially) misunderstand what i'm saying.

No, I was thinking of all the many debates on this subject that I have been in, and some of the views expressed.
Some have said that I, as a preacher, am disobeying God's word.
Some have said I am a feminist giving into my own desires, feelings and ambitions.
Some have said that I AM allowed to preach the Gospel - the bit of 1 Timothy 2:12 that talks about women being silent is not literal - but that I must not seek to be ordained because this verse says that a woman cannot have authority over a man, and that IS literal.
There have been a number of contradictory views expressed.

Brokenhill said:
Are you saved?
How did you answer God's call to salvation?
He detailed out for us how to be saved.

Yes I'm saved. The Gospel is clear, but understanding differs. Some people grasp it all, immediately and immediately repent; for others, the process is gradual. The Bible is very clear that God loves me and sent Jesus to die for me - but it took me a while to believe it.

Brokenhill · Sep 2, 2017

Yes I'm saved. The Gospel is clear, but understanding differs. Some people grasp it all, immediately and immediately repent; for others, the process is gradual. The Bible is very clear that God loves me and sent Jesus to die for me - but it took me a while to believe it.

Were you baptized (submerged) into water in the name of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit for the remission of your sins?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 8:36-38 "As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him."

Water baptism is an essential part for the initiation into Christ, being forgiven of your sins, and being granted the Holy Spirit.

Paidiske · Sep 2, 2017

Need I remind folks that it's against the rules to call another member's salvation (or Christianity) into question...?

Is it Wrong for Women to Preach in Church?

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Senior Veteran

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

anarchist personalist

Great is thy faithfulness

anarchist personalist

Newbie

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

Great is thy faithfulness

Praise God, i'm satisifed.

Clara bonam audax

Similar threads