Women Pastors?

UnpopularOpinion said:

There is no thing as woman pastor , by definition Pastor is male with wife and kids leading church.
Just single male can't be pastor aswell.

Same as there is no such thing as social justice . There is justice and everything different than justice is just injustice , it's just that people make up terms to deceive themselves and others.

Click to expand...

There are female pastors; some denominations, including mine, have them. But you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture. Just don't join a denomination that ordains women.

chad kincham said:

You’re the one who suggested I made it up, I would call that a snotty false accusation.

Click to expand...

I want to apologize for that. I thought perhaps you might have the Biblical acumen to cite it from memory or to provide your own translation, but I see now that's not the case. Please forgive me.

And if I may give you some advice- I'd suggest that if you're going to come to Bible Study with an obsolete, incorrectly translated paraphrase, adding the citation (GNT) will clear up confusion.

I've also seen you do that a couple of times with whatever commentaries you've been copying and pasting- no reference to the scholars behind the work. You will seem more credible if you include that.

UnpopularOpinion said:

There is no thing as woman pastor , by definition Pastor is male with wife and kids leading church.
Just single male can't be pastor aswell.

Click to expand...

So by your definition, Jesus isn't qualified to be a pastor in his own church. Nor is Paul. That is absurd.

Archivist said:

There are female pastors; some denominations, including mine, have them. But you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture. Just don't join a denomination that ordains women.

Click to expand...

But of course the discussion here is not concerned with what the different denominations have done about this controversy.

Rather, it's about whether or not it is Scriptural for a church to have women as pastors.

Albion said:

But of course the discussion here is not concerned with what the different denominations have done about this controversy.

Rather, it's about whether or not it is Scriptural for a church to have women as pastors.

Click to expand...

I addressed that earlier. It is scriptural for a church to have women as pastors. If you don’t agree, don’t join a church that ordains women.

Archivist said:

It is scriptural for a church to have women as pastors.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said, that is the issue here.

It's not that there are some churches which do it one way and others that do it the opposite way, as though it doesn't really matter which of them has it right.

Albion said:

Well, as I said, that is the issue here.

It's not that there are some churches which do it one way and others that do it the opposite way, as though it doesn't really matter which of them has it right.

Click to expand...

Again, I addressed that earlier. I’m not going to repeat what I said earlier. Find it if you want to discuss it. I don’t know why you want to argue the matter. If you don’t approve of female pastors, don’t join a church that ordains women.

UnpopularOpinion said:

There is no thing as woman pastor ,

Click to expand...

There clearly is.

UnpopularOpinion said:

by definition Pastor is male with wife and kids leading church.
Just single male can't be pastor aswell.

Click to expand...

Of course they can.
Jesus wasn't married with kids neither was Paul. Apart from Peter, we don't know that any of the apostles were married

Fervent said:

The Bible was not revealed in English, but Greek. And In the Greek the only gendered words are woman and husband, which itself can be explained because polygyny was almost universally frowned upon even in the Diana cult so there would be no need for a similar injunction against women. The issue isn't as clear cut as it's made out to be, neither historically nor Biblically.

Click to expand...

In the Roman Empire- polygamy was frowned upon, but Timothy is serving in Asia Minor where the Roman rules were not in fullforce. I am agreeable to either a monogamous relationship or only married once. But a bishop must be the male husband of one wife! Hitroy and biblically it is clear to all those except those who have an agenda against the clear teaching of SCripture!

Archivist said:

Then why was Phoebe a deacon?

Click to expand...

Phoebe wasn't

The Apostle who said that deacons must be the male husband of one female wife is not going to commend an ordained female deacon. And Paul made that point under the Inspiration of God!

People want to focus on Pheobe being a diakonos to teh church in Senchrea as proof she was an ordained deacon. But no. Paul prohibited women from that office so the term diakonos goes to its simple definition of one who serves and not one who hold that office.

nolidad said:

Phoebe wasn't

The Apostle who said that deacons must be the male husband of one female wife is not going to commend an ordained female deacon. And Paul made that point under the Inspiration of God!

People want to focus on Pheobe being a diakonos to teh church in Senchrea as proof she was an ordained deacon. But no. Paul prohibited women from that office so the term diakonos goes to its simple definition of one who serves and not one who hold that office.

Click to expand...

No, Paul wrote that Phoebe was a deacon. If you want to second guess him, that is your choice.

Gregorikos said:

In fact I agree with Paul. I disagree with you. As I've shown your previously, using multiple resources, "one woman man" (1 Timothy 3:2, 12) and "one man woman" (1 Timothy 5:9) are idioms for marital fidelity. As is typical of gendered expressions in most any language, male is the default. That expression does not exlude women.

Click to expand...

Wrong! YOU offered one mans opinion saying that. But you did not show any development of it becoming an idiom. But a bishop must be the aner of one gyne? I can accept that we can make an idiom from that. The idiom being that a bishop must be a faithful married man. This would be the idiom. But you cannot just dismiss teh gender specific roles paul played. Even with deacons.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

YOu need to defend why we should take these gender specific words inspired into Scripture and show God meant gender non specific words. There is a huge difference .

pescador said:

God's Word does not prohibit women from being ordained as Bishops (Pastors) and to be deacons. a) That is your interpretation b) We are not under law but under grace 3) There is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

It is amazing to me that some Christians are trying to put the rest of us under "the law" by using the epistles to create rules of a new priesthood similar to the that of the Old Covenant.

There is no reason that women cannot serve in any role to which God calls them. Again, there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, so why are some people putting others back under "the law". They are creating new rules instead of being guided by the Spirit. It shows a real lack of understanding of the New Covenant!

Click to expand...

So following your logic, there is no male nor female in Christ and that when Paul said husband and wife, he didn't mean specifically man and woman, then you must have no problems with gays and lesbians marrying and being in good standing in the church. also you can have a homosexual pastor or a lesbian pastor. As long as they are faithful to their spouse!

After all you are saying there is no male nor female in Christ so there should be nothing wrong with a person marrying another person for there is no sex difference in Christ now! OK now we know!

nolidad said:

Wrong! YOU offered one mans opinion saying that. But you did not show any development of it becoming an idiom. But a bishop must be the aner of one gyne? I can accept that we can make an idiom from that. The idiom being that a bishop must be a faithful married man. This would be the idiom. But you cannot just dismiss teh gender specific roles paul played. Even with deacons.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

YOu need to defend why we should take these gender specific words inspired into Scripture and show God meant gender non specific words. There is a huge difference .

Click to expand...

I showed you that from the BDAG lexicon and from Andreas J Köstenberger's commentary on 1-2 Timothy and Titus in a previous thread.

We can add to that if you want-

Douglas Moo acknowledges that this phrase need not exclude “unmarried men or females from the office . . . it would be going too far to argue that the phrase clearly excludes women. . . .” Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 198–222, 211.

Thomas Schreiner acknowledges, “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders. . . .” Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.” JBMW (Spring 2010): 33–46, 35.

Köstenberger, Moo, and Schriener are all well known complementarians that oppose women as pastors, but they all agree that you're all wet regarding "husband of one wife."

Philip_B said:

Your argument fails here absolutely, because you have spread the net so wide as the includes deacons.

Phoebe (biblical figure) - Wikipedia

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.
Romans 16:1-2​

I am also unsure as the why you would omit the apostrophe from God's Word, unless you are specifically trying to inculcate it with personality to stand out side of the one whose word it is.

Click to expand...

1. Don't know what apostrophe I supposedly omitted. But that is a gnat in this argument.

2. Paul, under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit in writing what was to become part of the New TEstament, prohibited women from being bishops and deacone by saying they both must be a man of one woman (aner/gyne)

1 Timothy 3
King James Version

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:10-12
King James Version

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


It is up to you to defend your position that the Bible does not mean what it says here. You must defend you hypotheses that the specific language was not what God really wanted and He meant gender non specific terms. Just off the top of my head, instead of saying aner(husband male) and gyne (wife female) God could have used the term anthropos in the singular which means human!

Defend why yo wish to reinterpret these two passages to mean something other than what is written and normally and commonlly understand as a man of one woman.

Paidiske said:

Thing is, I'm not doing this for reward, not even eternal reward. I am doing this out of sincere conviction that this is what God has created, gifted and called me to do, and if there is no reward for that, God's grace is sufficient for me.

Click to expand...

Well then you are more humble and pious than Paul. Me? I want all the crowns I can get my hands on! It wil show that I was faithful to HIm and I will have something to take off my head, throw at His feet and cry "Thou art worthy!

Nice to see you back. I was wondering which of you , greoriokos, and bekkilyn would join back here.

nolidad said:

Wrong! YOU offered one mans opinion saying that. But you did not show any development of it becoming an idiom. But a bishop must be the aner of one gyne? I can accept that we can make an idiom from that. The idiom being that a bishop must be a faithful married man. This would be the idiom. But you cannot just dismiss teh gender specific roles paul played. Even with deacons.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

YOu need to defend why we should take these gender specific words inspired into Scripture and show God meant gender non specific words. There is a huge difference .

Click to expand...

No, Paul said that Phoebe was a deacon. If you don't want to accept that then that is your problem.

And don't tell me what what I need to do. This is a discussion forum. I presented my case. If you don't like it then that is your problem, not mine. Don't join a church that ordains women if you don't agree with female pastors.

Gregorikos said:

I showed you that from the BDAG lexicon and from Andreas J Köstenberger's commentary on 1-2 Timothy and Titus in a previous thread.

We can add to that if you want-

Douglas Moo acknowledges that this phrase need not exclude “unmarried men or females from the office . . . it would be going too far to argue that the phrase clearly excludes women. . . .” Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 198–222, 211.

Thomas Schreiner acknowledges, “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders. . . .” Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.” JBMW (Spring 2010): 33–46, 35.

Köstenberger, Moo, and Schriener are all well known complementarians that oppose women as pastors, but they all agree that you're all wet regarding "husband of one wife."

Click to expand...

So let me get my 100 PHD biblical and linguistic scholars that say your scholars are wrong and I win!

Phrases like "does not necessarily mean" is not proof but a guess!

You hang it all on the fact that Phoebe was called a diakonos to the church in Chenchrea. I also agree that unmarried men were not excluded, because teh same Inpsired writer also made specific comment on that.

You are trying to make an argument from silence not from evidence.

Acts 6
King James Version

6 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

ANER again. Gender specific! Peter- what a mysoginistic pig he was! ( I am being sarcastic).

Don't you think that if God wanted women pastors and deacons and Him knowng this conflict would come up, would use more nongender specific words? He had them available to use in Greek!

But I still await teh evidence these authors you cite used to give their conclusions. I know their conclusions, but you have not given us the evidence from grammar, culture, and history that caused them to reach those conclusions.

Archivist said:

No, Paul said that Phoebe was a deacon. If you don't want to accept that then that is your problem.

And don't tell me what what I need to do. This is a discussion forum. I presented my case. If you don't like it then that is your problem, not mine. Don't join a church that ordains women if you don't agree with female pastors.

Click to expand...

Chill bro! We are just having a discussion here. You can go to nay church you wish and sit under teh teaching of anyone you want. I am just presenting the Word of God as written and not re-interpreted. Even you must admit that if we accept those passages we are discussing as they are written, it is men who are bishops and deacons.

Only the more modern translations render Phoebe a deacon or leader. What do they know that all the other faithful saints gone by don't?

nolidad said:

Chill bro! We are just having a discussion here. You can go to nay church you wish and sit under teh teaching of anyone you want. I am just presenting the Word of God as written and not re-interpreted. Even you must admit that if we accept those passages we are discussing as they are written, it is men who are bishops and deacons.

Only the more modern translations render Phoebe a deacon or leader. What do they know that all the other faithful saints gone by don't?

Click to expand...

No, you are presenting your interpretation, just as I am presenting my interpretation. Women have been ministers since the 1600s, that isn't terribly recent. And don't tell me to chill. You were the one shouting in your last post to me.