Women Preachers...The truth!

Paidiske · May 19, 2019

I think presenting this as primarily a "power struggle" is to misunderstand the experience of many people.

Perhaps some men see it as a power struggle; a struggle to hold onto power, or to deny women power. Women, by and large, do not see wanting to be in these roles as being about power, or wanting power.

Phil W · May 19, 2019

Philip_B said:
I have three boys (well men now) and I can tell you of all the things they did to earn me my grey hair, their hair was the least of my worries. I do not think that a man having long hair is contentious, I just think it is a man having long hair. I don't have long hair, and that may well be a reflection of the reality that I could not be bothered looking after it.

Having long hair isn't the contentious thing, defending the right to have long hair is being contentious to what the bible says.
If we can push that exhortation aside, can we not also push other exhortations aside?
How about adultery...if enough of us vote on it?

Our challenge is to speak the eternal truth in temporal reality. We are called not to ignore the temporal reality, not to be subsumed by it, but to work within it that the light of Christ might shine in the darkness, knowing that the darkness will not overcome it.

I guess it just depends on how much one wants to be identified by scripture.
If the bible says "jump", I jump.
If it says men having long hair is a shame unto them...I cut my hair.
Why isn't this truth eternal?

Phil W · May 19, 2019

Sparagmos said:
Paidiske consistently demonstrates the fact that women are made to minister and lead just as men are. She shows incredible scholarship, wisdom, and patience, more so than most of the men here on CF. Clearly she is playing the role she was meant for, and it is unrelated to her gender.

Too bad her "facts" are unbiblical.

Phil W · May 19, 2019

Sparagmos said:
Women had a lot more trouble when we were expected to submit to male “headship.” You’re never going to convince us to go back to those oppressive roles.

Was your dad "oppressive"?
Women will always feel oppressed if the men in their lives are not Christians.
Look at the examples and exhortations of scripture of how a man, husband is supposed to be.
Any man going outside those exhortations has overstepped God's will.

Phil W · May 19, 2019

Strong in Him said:
That verse - which you have taken out of context - may only appear once, but we are constantly urged to be holy, 1 Thessalonians 3:3, to be like Christ, be IN Christ and put on Christ. Paul says that the Holy spirit is changing us into Jesus' image and likeness.

Whose context?
"Be perfect like God is".
Isn't that the end all of being a Christian?
BTW, your scripture siting is not the one you mean.

No, there are other examples of women as leaders. Esther was queen, influenced the king and saved the Jews from destruction. The Jews still celebrate this with an annual festival called Purim.

She wasn't a queen in Israel or Judah.

Phoebe was a deacon in the church; other women were apostles and were commended by Paul for their work.

You didn't find that in the bible.
In fact the qualifications for being a deacon include..."Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife..." (1 Tim 3:12)
Who was Phoebes' wife?
As for woman apostles...never once.
Where are you getting this misinformation?

Besides, if it were God's will and command that no woman should be in leadership, they never would have been. Ever.

Where has a woman ever led a church...which is the body of Christ?
Women teaching men is not God's will

That means you don't take 1 Timothy 2:12 literally and are calling for women to be silenced. That's good.

I do take it literally.
If a woman is given a prophesy, she can tell her husband or the bishop before or after service.

Where are the words "so women can never teach men", in that statement?
Where does it say that a female vicar, who is under the authority of a male Bishop, cannot be in that role?

1 Tim 2:12 says it.
You deny it.
You would prefer the body taught the Head.

Oh good.
Presumably your church will not appoint single, childless men to be Ministers/pastors; or those who drink, lie money, have a temper, cannot control their children, and so on. Presumably if a man is an excellent candidate for such a role but his wife is infertile, he would be turned away. Scripture says a man MUST be able to control his children, right? Scripture says a church leader MUST be patient, right?

Absolutely right.
If we didn't, we would not be the body of Christ, walking in the Spirit instead of in the flesh, in Christ, obedient to scripture, holy, sanctified, and justified.

Phil W · May 19, 2019

Strong in Him said:
No.
And if it were imperative, Paul would be more specific. How long is 'long'? Below the ears? Down to the collar - oh, wait; collars aren't Scriptural.

Being contentious, are we?

God's nature and attributes never change, but the ways in which he work certainly do.
Once God traveled around in a tabernacle; that was the sign of his presence and where he "lived".
Then he instructed Solomon to build a temple - his house, where sacrifices were received and feasts celebrated. But that was destroyed, first while his people were in exile, and then by the Romans, and has never been rebuilt.
Then Jesus came and taught that God can live IN us.
Once, God made a covenant with his people, the Israelites; now he has made a NEW Covenant and Gentiles can also be his people.
Once, people had to approach prophets to get a word from the Lord; now, we can all speak to him directly.

God doesn't change.
Cultures of THIS world change.
Christians are not of this world and have no business chasing after current trends.
Or better said, we have no business changing our morals to mix with the damned.

Philip_B · May 20, 2019

Phil W said:
Having long hair isn't the contentious thing, defending the right to have long hair is being contentious to what the bible says. If we can push that exhortation aside, can we not also push other exhortations aside? How about adultery...if enough of us vote on it?

I guess it just depends on how much one wants to be identified by scripture. If the bible says "jump", I jump. If it says men having long hair is a shame unto them...I cut my hair. Why isn't this truth eternal?

If you can not discern a qualitative difference between a man having long hair, and a man committing adultery then you live in a very precious world. I would like to make it clear that I have not suggested that there is not a moral imperative, and I have not suggested that sin is determined democratically.

I honestly believe that you are misunderstanding the blessed apostle Paul, so I guess I should be honoured that you are also misunderstanding me.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

Phil W · May 20, 2019

bmjackson said:
@Phil W
The husband is head of the woman not the household.

uhhh...Who else is in the household?

Being the head does not mean what men have made it mean in the church.

God, Jesus, man, woman.
How can it not trickle down just like a household?
We are God's household.

There are plenty of matters that only women can address and that is why it is necessary for ministry to be in a husband and wife team - just like how Adam and Eve functioned.

Where, please.

Why have you changed that order? It does not say in scripture that man must be head of the church in the same way and if you are using the example of the churches in the beginning you are mistaek as it was a time of special significance and persecution whereby women would need protecting.

It isn't me changing the order. It is those who wish for men to be subordinate to women that are trying to justify "changing the order".

"His leadership is in service to God, as scripture outlines in multiple places.
BTW, men didn't keep women "out of this important role", the bible did."
Quotations please.

It is written..."Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

"You site "natural order" but seem to prefer an unnatural order among men and women in ministry. I hope I am misreading you.
You site "natural order" but seem to prefer an unnatural order among men and women in ministry."

Natural order...God, Jesus, man, woman. (1 Cor 11:3)
That is natural in God's word.

The natural order is partership but with man taking responsibility for what goes on as he must protect the woman.
I hope I am misreading you.

If it is a partnership, why isn't the woman protecting the man too?
Your doctrine is unbiblical.

Phil W · May 20, 2019

Philip_B said:
It you can not discern a qualitative difference between a man having long hair, and a man committing adultery then you live in a very precious world. I would like to make it clear that I have not suggested that there is not a moral imperative, and I have not suggested that sin is determined democratically.

Qualitative differences between rebelliousness to God don't interest me.
There are no shades of grey in God's judgement.

I honestly believe that you are misunderstanding the blessed apostle Paul, so I guess I should be honoured that you are also misunderstanding me.

Don't kid yourself.
I understand rebellion perfectly, for I was once rebellious.

Strong in Him · May 20, 2019

Phil W said:
Whose context?
"Be perfect like God is".

The context is "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you and do not love, or greet, only those who love, or greet, you.
I'm saying that Jesus did not say this verse in isolation; he did not wake up one day, look at the 12 and say "be perfect as God is perfect".

And actually, he knows jolly well that we can't be perfect - that is why he went to the cross. If we could achieve perfection on our own, by our own efforts; we wouldn't need him.

Phil W said:
BTW, your scripture siting is not the one you mean.

Thank you; I meant 1 Thessalonians 4:3.

Phil W said:
She wasn't a queen in Israel or Judah.

Doesn't matter. She was Jewish and loved and worshipped God.
IF it was the will of God that women should never lead, why did he put her in that position?

Phil W said:
You didn't find that in the bible.

Romans 16:1
True, some translations have the word "servant" instead of deacon.
According to my interlinear Greek NT, the word is Diakonos, and this same word is used about Paul, 1 Corinthians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 6:4, Ephesians 3:7, Colossians 1:23; Tychicus, Ephesians 6:21; Epaphrus, Colossians 1:7 (translated here as Minister); Jesus himself, Romans 15:8 - and all believers, Matthew 20:26, John 12:26.

Phil W said:
In fact the qualifications for being a deacon include..."Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife..." (1 Tim 3:12)

Yes, the word Diakonos is used there too; that doesn't alter the fact that it is used in other places of men, and women.

Phil W said:
As for woman apostles...never once.

Romans 16:1.
The word Diakonos is translated as "servant", "deacon" or "Minister" - same word. It is also used to describe Phoebe.

Phil W said:
Where are you getting this misinformation?

INformation - from the Greek words used in Scripture.

Phil W said:
Where has a woman ever led a church...which is the body of Christ?

Lydia and her friends were probably founder members of the church at Philippi - Paul met them at a place of prayer, led them to Christ, stayed with Lydia and them moved on, Acts of the Apostles 16:11-15. The church had deaconesses, Philippians 4:2.

Phil W said:
Women teaching men is not God's will

If it weren't, God would not have used, or allowed, women to teach men.
Or is God not allowed to call who he likes and give them whatever gift he chooses?

Phil W said:
I do take it literally.

Well in that case, you have a contradiction.
1 Timothy 2:12 says women should be SILENT. Silent means not making a sound; not singing, reading Scripture or praying.
Yet in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul teaches how women are to pray and prophesy. In 1 Corinthians 12 he lists gifts of the Spirit, including teaching, and does not say that some are only for men. In 1 Corinthians 14 he talks about order in worship - WHEN people prophesy or pray in tongues, it should be done in an orderly way. He does not say "but of course, this does not include women." In Colossians he tells people to let Christ's word dwell in them as they teach, and to sing using Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, Colossians 3:16 - again, no word about women being exempt.
Jesus told his disciples to go and teach people everything he had taught them, Matthew 28:19-20. Jesus did not teach his disciples that women were not allowed to teach or lead, and women are not exempt from his Great Commission.

Phil W said:
If a woman is given a prophesy, she can tell her husband or the bishop before or after service.

Scripture doesn't say that.
There were prophetesses in the OT, Philip's daughters prophesied and Paul teaches that when women prophesied, they should cover their heads, 1 Corinthians 11:5.

Phil W said:
1 Tim 2:12 says it.
You deny it.

I don't deny Paul SAID it; I'm challenging the fact that it should be taken literally - because this contradicts other Scriptures.
Women taught, and have taught, men.
Priscilla taught Apollos; yes, her husband was there, but she probably did at least some of the teaching. Otherwise, Luke would have written that Aquila taught Apollos; Priscilla, of course, was not allowed to, being a woman.
Mary Magdalene told the Good News of the resurrection to men who did not know it. No doubt you will deny that this was teaching - but the fact remains.

I'm also saying it is a fact that God calls women today to teach, preach and Pastor local congregations. In fact, he has done for many years - in the 1300's, in the Catholic church, Catherine of Siena was asked, by the Pope, to teach Cardinals. She also advised the Pope on occasion. Gladys Aylward founded a church - and many people have come to Christ, been taught and discipled though the ministry of women; was all that invalid? Was anyone who heard the Gospel from a woman not really a Christian? Was any man who was taught theology by a woman and then went on to become ordained, not really a Minister?

This is what God IS doing today.
In Jesus' time the Pharisees missed what was happening in front of them - i.e their Messiah on earth, teaching and healing - because of their interpretation of the Scriptures.

Phil W said:
Absolutely right.

I commend you for your consistency.

Phil W said:
If we didn't, we would not be the body of Christ, walking in the Spirit instead of in the flesh, in Christ, obedient to scripture, holy, sanctified, and justified.

No.
Taken literally, this says a deacon MUST be a husband and have children. Single, or childless, men can be deacons/Ministers just as much as married ones.
Jesus is our supreme example, leader, Lord and Great High Priest - he wasn't married. Neither, it appears, was Paul.

Strong in Him · May 20, 2019

Phil W said:
Being contentious, are we?

Not at all; it's a valid question.
Paul said that long hair is disgraceful on a man, 1 Corinthians 11:14 - how long is long? Why does he give no measurements or further details?

Phil W said:
God doesn't change.

No, but the way he works DOES sometimes change - as in the examples I gave earlier.
Isaiah 43:18-19: "forget the things of the past .... see, I am doing a NEW thing."
Jeremiah 31:31 - "I will make a NEW Covenant".
Joel 2:28, "I will pour out my Spirit on all people" - fulfilled at Pentecost. This was new; God's Spirit did not live IN people in the OT, or in Jesus' day, in the way that he can do today.

Sorry, but those who read the OT Scriptures and said, "God speaks to us through the prophets", or "God forgives through animal sacrifices", or "the Jews are God's people", or "God lives in the temple; Scripture says these things and God doesn't change", would no doubt have missed, not believed or challenged Jesus' teaching that people could come to God directly, talk to him, ask for forgiveness, be born again and become God's children. Actually, many of them did, and no doubt do today.

Phil W said:
Christians are not of this world and have no business chasing after current trends.

It's Scriptural, historical and not a current trend.

Phil W said:
Or better said, we have no business changing our morals to mix with the damned.

This is not morality, has no bearing on salvation - and Jesus ate and drank with Gentiles, tax collectors and sinners.

timewerx · May 20, 2019

Tone said:
I stand corrected...

The unidentified animal in the cage in my OP seemed to have helped preserve the peace!

bmjackson · May 20, 2019

Phil W said:
It isn't me changing the order. It is those who wish for men to be subordinate to women that are trying to justify "changing the order".

Strawman.

Phil W said:
It is written..."Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

At the time of writing, Christians were making the Jews and the Romans very angry because they were treating their women as equals. This verse and one similar, are a misinterpretation without the contex. Because of the severe persecution of Christians, it was required that the women were not drawing attention in the churches and that is why Paul instructed them to be silent in this occasion whereas in others, they were preaching and teaching.

Paul then showed that women were to be protected and that men were totally able to look after themselves as they did in Eden, blaming the woman and God whereas Even only spoke the truth - she was deceived.

If men are to minister to at least 50% of their flock as women, how on earth are they able to do this without a womans input? A womans world is quite distinct from a mans and even a married man is not qualified, it needs a wife too.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 20, 2019

timewerx said:
Iceland, #1 in gender equality:

no drugs. nothing to do with gender equality.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 20, 2019

Jen35 said:
Well, I don't know. But Paul was probably still persecuting the church when he taught that subject, I mean he sounded a bit sneaky and arrogant in part of his teachings lol

No, not at all.
He was taught by Jesus, personally.
Yahweh SCOURGES the believers (Yahweh's children, born again)
(today as well as in the first century - in case you mistook Yahweh's SCOURGING for persecuting).

Remember whoever rejects Paul (or any messenger of God), has already rejected Jesus.

Sparagmos · May 20, 2019

Phil W said:
Was your dad "oppressive"?
Women will always feel oppressed if the men in their lives are not Christians.
Look at the examples and exhortations of scripture of how a man, husband is supposed to be.
Any man going outside those exhortations has overstepped God's will.

My dad was a minister who preached headship and used it as an excuse to abuse his wife and children. My mother allowed her children to be abused because her church taught that she must submit to his will. You can see the same flawed doctrine oppressing women under Islam. Not that headship under a non-abusive man doesn’t still result in oppression. Limiting the full potential and worth of any human being is oppressive. Like I said, women aren’t going back to that, when there are plenty of men who love and respect women as equals. Most men don’t want to go back to that either.

Sparagmos · May 20, 2019

Phil W said:
Too bad her "facts" are unbiblical.

Her existence and natural abilities are unbiblical? If you didn’t know her gender you would not be able to differentiate her teachings and qualities from a man’s. If women weren’t meant to lead we wouldn’t have been given the ability.

W2L · May 20, 2019

Sparagmos said:
Her existence and natural abilities are unbiblical? If you didn’t know her gender you would not be able to differentiate her teachings and qualities from a man’s. If women weren’t meant to lead we wouldn’t have been given the ability.

False teachers have the ability to lead. So being able to lead doesn't prove you are leading properly.

Sparagmos · May 20, 2019

W2L said:
False teachers have the ability to lead. So being able to lead doesn't prove you are leading properly.

Nope, it’s not logical that women have the same potential for leadership as men but aren’t “made” for it. The same people who promoted those ideas also said women shouldn’t even be taught to read and treated women as property.

Phil W · May 20, 2019

Strong in Him said:
The context is "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you and do not love, or greet, only those who love, or greet, you.
I'm saying that Jesus did not say this verse in isolation; he did not wake up one day, look at the 12 and say "be perfect as God is perfect".

Agreed...it was meant for all of us including today.

And actually, he knows jolly well that we can't be perfect - that is why he went to the cross. If we could achieve perfection on our own, by our own efforts; we wouldn't need him.

Well, we part ways on this one.
I posit that those reborn of God's seed start out perfect and continue to grow in grace and knowledge.
Of course it was necessary for Jesus to die and be raised again for that to happen.

Doesn't matter. She was Jewish and loved and worshipped God.
IF it was the will of God that women should never lead, why did he put her in that position?

Something has gotten lost here, either from my post or yours.
Where did God put a woman in position to lead?
To be the head over the man?

Romans 16:1
True, some translations have the word "servant" instead of deacon.
According to my interlinear Greek NT, the word is Diakonos, and this same word is used about Paul, 1 Corinthians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 6:4, Ephesians 3:7, Colossians 1:23; Tychicus, Ephesians 6:21; Epaphrus, Colossians 1:7 (translated here as Minister); Jesus himself, Romans 15:8 - and all believers, Matthew 20:26, John 12:26.

I'll stick with a version of the bible that doesn't blur the lines between a man's and a woman's duty and position in a Church.
One can serve without being a deacon or pastor.

Lydia and her friends were probably founder members of the church at Philippi - Paul met them at a place of prayer, led them to Christ, stayed with Lydia and them moved on, Acts of the Apostles 16:11-15. The church had deaconesses, Philippians 4:2.

You are trying to use scripture to counter scripture.
I don't buy it at all.

Well in that case, you have a contradiction.
1 Timothy 2:12 says women should be SILENT. Silent means not making a sound; not singing, reading Scripture or praying.

The scripture says nothing about silence during singing, reading, or prayer.
It says for them to be silent while learning..." Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."...
And Paul says for them to be silent instead of trying to usurp authority over men.

Yet in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul teaches how women are to pray and prophesy. In 1 Corinthians 12 he lists gifts of the Spirit, including teaching, and does not say that some are only for men. In 1 Corinthians 14 he talks about order in worship - WHEN people prophesy or pray in tongues, it should be done in an orderly way. He does not say "but of course, this does not include women." In Colossians he tells people to let Christ's word dwell in them as they teach, and to sing using Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, Colossians 3:16 - again, no word about women being exempt.
Jesus told his disciples to go and teach people everything he had taught them, Matthew 28:19-20. Jesus did not teach his disciples that women were not allowed to teach or lead, and women are not exempt from his Great Commission.

Your efforts to discredit Paul are not working.
Paul said..."I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
For some are already turned aside after Satan." (1 Tim 5:14-15)
Here is the extent of a woman's teachings, as Paul writes..."The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, (Titus 2:3-4)

Scripture doesn't say that.
There were prophetesses in the OT, Philip's daughters prophesied and Paul teaches that when women prophesied, they should cover their heads, 1 Corinthians 11:5.

It doesn't say otherwise.
BTW, Paul writes that a woman's hair is given her for a covering, so why would he then say they must add an additional covering?

I don't deny Paul SAID it; I'm challenging the fact that it should be taken literally - because this contradicts other Scriptures.
Women taught, and have taught, men.
Priscilla taught Apollos; yes, her husband was there, but she probably did at least some of the teaching.

Conjecture doesn't equate to truth.

Otherwise, Luke would have written that Aquila taught Apollos; Priscilla, of course, was not allowed to, being a woman.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
You can't make it so just by posting.

Mary Magdalene told the Good News of the resurrection to men who did not know it. No doubt you will deny that this was teaching - but the fact remains.

No doubt I deny it is teaching.
Had it been, the apostles would have believed her.

I'm also saying it is a fact that God calls women today to teach, preach and Pastor local congregations. In fact, he has done for many years - in the 1300's, in the Catholic church, Catherine of Siena was asked, by the Pope, to teach Cardinals. She also advised the Pope on occasion. Gladys Aylward founded a church - and many people have come to Christ, been taught and discipled though the ministry of women; was all that invalid? Was anyone who heard the Gospel from a woman not really a Christian? Was any man who was taught theology by a woman and then went on to become ordained, not really a Minister?

It is too bad that you have to stoop to the examples of a false church's doings to lend credibility to your POV.

No.
Taken literally, this says a deacon MUST be a husband and have children. Single, or childless, men can be deacons/Ministers just as much as married ones.

Do you have some aversion to literal scripture?
Or is it only when you want to spread some unbiblical principal?

Jesus is our supreme example, leader, Lord and Great High Priest - he wasn't married. Neither, it appears, was Paul.

Besides the fact that both were men, neither were bishops or deacons.

Women Preachers...The truth!

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

the village i--o--t--

Newbie

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads