Womens roles in the church

Archivist said:

Why would I say Luther was wrong in everything when he was obviously right in many matters? He was certainly right in the concept of the priesthood of all believers. He was certainly right in translating the Bible into the common tongue. Perhaps you are not aware that Luther believed that our pets would be with us in heaven, something that some people even today do not believe. He certainly had very good taste in beer--his wife brewed it for him.

Click to expand...

So why do you just keep saying "he was a man of his time" instead of giving some solid reasons why he was wrong regarding women or the verse's context?

It simply seems that your whole argumentation is "we know better than him, just because, period". You have given us some ambiguous verses as your proofs, but those verses were also in the Luther's Bible, its no new discovery.

pescador said:

No, of course not. But we live in an entirely different society -- at least in the Western Judeo-Christian world -- than the one that existed two thousand years ago. Women have an entirely different status than the role of "obedient teenage wife/servant" of NT times. Aside from some very few physical tasks, there is nothing that women are incapable of doing in this day and age. That is reality.

God's Word is eternal. It needs to be understood spiritually. It applies to all generations, but it is not to be understood as "the law", which is external. Our current view is neither superior nor inferior; it is what it is.

Click to expand...

Do you have any proofs that "our" (in some evangelical churches, only) current view is the right one? Because we can see things in our society that are obviously not working well, even though they are called modern.

myst33 said:

So why do you just keep saying "he was a man of his time" instead of giving some solid reasons why he was wrong regarding women or the verse's context?

Click to expand...

Because the time in which we live determines our views to a very great extent. You can’t seem to figure that out. Luther elevated women greatly. He just couldn’t make the jump to putting them into leadership roles. Had he lived 200 years later like Wesley he very well might have done that.

Would we agree that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were great men? I would hope so. Yet both were slaveholders. They were men of their time. We have, thankfully, advanced beyond that just as we advanced beyond burning witches and Anabaptists.

It simply seems that your whole argumentation is "we know better than him, just because, period". You have given us some ambiguous verses as your proofs, but those verses were also in the Luther's Bible, its no new discovery.

Click to expand...

Ambiguous verses? No, I’ve offered solid evidence to back what I have said.

LoveofTruth said:

1 Timothy 5: 20.” Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”

Click to expand...

That was the final step after exhausting all other corrective measures involving the accusation of two or three witnesses - for an elder caught in sin. These erring ministers were to be rebuked before the congregation, so that other ministers might also be warned not to fall into sinful behavior like this. I have heard this verse misused before by others as well, so you are certainly not the first one to misinterpret it.

Church discipline is often mismanaged (or not used at all), to the detriment of the flock. I have seen examples of both types of incorrect handling of this issue. Neither is good.

Archivist said:

Because the time in which we live determines our views to a very great extent. You can’t seem to figure that out. Luther elevated women greatly. He just couldn’t make the jump to putting them into leadership roles. Had he lived 200 years later like Wesley he very well might have done that.

Would we agree that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were great men? I would hope so. Yet both were slaveholders. They were men of their time. We have, thankfully, advanced beyond that just as we advanced beyond burning witches and Anabaptists.

Click to expand...

Just tell me what reasoning errors he did regarding the role of women and regarding the context of the verse (salvation).

I understand very well that the time and place you live in (today's USA) determine your view to a very great extent. But it does not make it automatically right or wrong. I cannot dismiss you just by saying "eeeh, you are a man of your time and place" like if it automatically says you are wrong.

Archivist said:

Ambiguous verses? No, I’ve offered solid evidence to back what I have said.

Click to expand...

Ambiguous verses that can be translated and understood in various ways are not solid evidence.

LoveofTruth said:

No “usurp authority” means this

“from a compound of 846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker); to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate:--usurp authority over.“

Click to expand...

Dictionary .com:

usurp
[ yoo-surp, -zurp ]
verb (used with object)
to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right:The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully:The magazine usurped copyrighted material.
verb (used without object)
to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.

Click to expand...

The Free dictionary:

usurp
u·surp
(yo͞o-sûrp′, -zûrp′)
v. u·surped, u·surp·ing, u·surps
v.tr.
1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.
2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.

Click to expand...

How does a woman SEIZE authority by force and without legal right or permission, when church leaders recognise that God has the authority to call her, accept her call, offer to train her and appoint her to a church - and the church willingly receives her and promises to support her ministry?

LoveofTruth said:

There’s no way out of these clear scriptures by trying hard to avoid them or change their clear meaning

Ephesians 5: 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Click to expand...

Yes, but a Minister of a church is not the same as a husband.
As I said earlier, we can change our Minister, or change churches - or the Minister can resign or retire.
I could change my husband by divorce, or possibly murder - but let's not even go there.

LoveofTruth said:

Now imagine a family where the husband ruled well his own home and was a Ekder/overseer (1 Timothy ?3) and his wife was submitting to him and subject to him in meekness and a godly way. Then the church regularly met in his home and suddenly the wife took oversight and judged and corrected him in front of their children and the church, but during the week she did no such thing. Can you see the confusion that would bring?

Click to expand...

Firstly, I am sure that a wise wife who loved her husband would not suddenly start judging and correcting him in front of the children and in the presence of other Christians. That hypothetical problem is not proof of what you are saying, nor a reason to argue against female ordination.

Secondly, there are men who do not rule over their own home - either because of character, or because husband and wife share things equally, or maybe because they work away from home, are in the forces/prison and it is the wife who has the day to day running of the household.

Thirdly, you seem to think that ruling over, or taking charge, means telling someone what to do and publicly correcting and judging them. A husband who loves his wife as Christ loves his church will not behave like that. And that is not the role of a Minister. My Minister cannot tell me where to live, what church to go to, what job to have, how much money to give to the church. My vicar could not tell me who, or whether, to marry, nor how many children we should have; if any at all.
The roles of husbands and Ministers are not the same.

myst33 said:

Just tell me what reasoning errors he did regarding the role of women and regarding the context of the verse (salvation).

Click to expand...

Which verse? I’ve quoted several over the course of this thread.

I understand very well that the time and place you live in (today's USA) determine your view to a very great extent. But it does not make it automatically right or wrong. I cannot dismiss you just by saying "eeeh, you are a man of your time and place" like if it automatically says you are wrong.

Click to expand...

So owning slaves was right? Burning witches was right? People once used scripture to justify both. I think we have advanced beyond that.

Ambiguous verses that can be translated and understood in various ways are not solid evidence.

Click to expand...

Sure they are.

LoveofTruth said:

Well it’s common practice in the church as we see in scripture

1 Timothy 5: 20.” Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”

Click to expand...

Try reading that in context. Jesus gave clear instructions on this: "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over" (Matthew 18:15). If that doesn't work, you are to rebuke them before one or two people. Rebuking before the congregation is to be a last resort. It should not be "common practice." I've never seen it done in my church.

Galatians 2: 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

Click to expand...

Except this doesn't say or imply that Paul opposed Peter in front of the church. This may well have been a private rebuke.

and "1 Corinthians 14: 24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.”

Click to expand...

Except this specifically deals with unbelievers who come into the service. It doesn't apply to the situation you described.

you may want to re-examine your entire church order

Click to expand...

No, my church seems to be doing things right.

I'm still waiting for an answer--what is the source of your definitions?

myst33 said:

Just tell me what reasoning errors he did regarding the role of women and regarding the context of the verse (salvation).

I understand very well that the time and place you live in (today's USA) determine your view to a very great extent. But it does not make it automatically right or wrong. I cannot dismiss you just by saying "eeeh, you are a man of your time and place" like if it automatically says you are wrong.


Ambiguous verses that can be translated and understood in various ways are not solid evidence.

Click to expand...

He didn't make any errors according to the beliefs AT THAT TIME, the early 1500s, just as burning witches and Anabaptists was then seen as being correct. Luther was actually ahead of his time because he included women in the priesthood of all believers. That was a big step forward.

3 Resurrections said:

Thank you for noting the typo. I'm typing in a hurry. I'll change it.

But this "receiving" that this "elect lady" was doing was not merely hospitality, such as "Hey, welcome, we're having dinner, come on in." This was the very same kind of "receiving" that Diotrephes was NOT doing in 3 John. Instead of "receiving" the brethren, Diotrephes was "casting them out of the church" (3 John 1:9-10). This is more than just the host of the home saying, "Oops, sorry, you'll have to leave - we don't have enough pot roast to go around."

Though the power-hungry Diotrephes was in error as to whom he was casting out of the assembly, the church assembly's task actually was to be vigilant as to whom it accepted in fellowship. This is what the "elect lady" was being instructed by John to do in the assembly meeting in her home. In those days of church persecution with even family and friends betraying one another, it was best to be careful.

Click to expand...

Where does it say she was a Pastor?

Paidiske said:

Nobody today speaks the Greek of the New Testament; it is, in effect, a dead dialect. (Modern Greek has changed considerably from the Greek of 2,000 years ago). However, I have studied Koine Greek (the Greek of the NT) to a very high level as part of my masters degree, and am quite competent to read and translate passages of the NT. (My denomination considers a degree of proficiency in Koine Greek a necessary requirement for ordination).

Click to expand...

Greek is oldest Continuing language in the world. It has undergone restructuring but has certainly not been a ''dead'' language at any point. Perhaps your denomination is teaching you misinformation?

Strong in Him said:

That's OT.

Click to expand...

Have you used Old Testament scripture to try and validate a point in this thread?

All Glory To God said:

Have you used Old Testament scripture to try and validate a point in this thread?

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about OT Scripture, but the OT beliefs that priests had to be perfect. If, in fact, they did; I haven't checked it out. My understanding is that there were sacrifices for if/when a priest sinned. In the book of Hebrews we are told that a high priest made sacrifice for himself, and the sins of the people, Hebrews 9:7
Also, in the OT people, and priests, were purified through the blood of animal sacrifices - we don't do that now.

Using OT examples to illustrate a point - i.e that God chooses people that the world would consider to be too young/old/weak or of little significance, is not the same thing.

LoveofTruth said:

Women’s ministry and roles in the church

Click to expand...

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.
(sozo = to save, heal, preserve, make whole.)

John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, "Mary". She turned herself, and saith unto Him, "Rabboni"; which is to say, Master.

https://www.hebrewreaders.com/is-the-holy-spirit-a-female

Archivist said:

A discussion would be easier if you would post words instead of cute pictures.

Click to expand...

For you, humourous light-hearted memes are an appropriate way to communicate as the serious discourse is not effective.

Change my mind?

All Glory To God said:

Where does it say she was a Pastor?

Click to expand...

If she was doing pastoring activities (such as "receiving" or "not receiving" members into her house church), then she was a pastor of "her children" whom John was commending for "walking in truth".

If it walks like a duck...

Strong in Him said:

I'm not talking about OT Scripture, but the OT beliefs that priests had to be perfect. If, in fact, they did; I haven't checked it out. My understanding is that there were sacrifices for if/when a priest sinned. In the book of Hebrews we are told that a high priest made sacrifice for himself, and the sins of the people, Hebrews 9:7
Also, in the OT people, and priests, were purified through the blood of animal sacrifices - we don't do that now.

Using OT examples to illustrate a point - i.e that God chooses people that the world would consider to be too young/old/weak or of little significance, is not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Please just answer the question as you brought it up: Have you used Old Testament scripture to try and validate a point in this thread?

3 Resurrections said:

If she was doing pastoring activities (such as "receiving" or "not receiving" members into her house church), then she was a pastor of "her children" whom John was commending for "walking in truth".

If it walks like a duck...

Click to expand...

Where does the scripture state she was ''doing pastoring activities''? Your words.

Strong in Him said:

I'm not talking about OT Scripture, but the OT beliefs that priests had to be perfect. If, in fact, they did; I haven't checked it out. My understanding is that there were sacrifices for if/when a priest sinned. In the book of Hebrews we are told that a high priest made sacrifice for himself, and the sins of the people, Hebrews 9:7
Also, in the OT people, and priests, were purified through the blood of animal sacrifices - we don't do that now.

Using OT examples to illustrate a point - i.e that God chooses people that the world would consider to be too young/old/weak or of little significance, is not the same thing.

Click to expand...

You act like the entire OT had the world-wide-sacrificial-system with which to bribe God to take their sins away. They didn't. Jesus repeats the Prophets when He says, Go learn what this means: I will have mercy, not sacrifice. In other words, the sure mercies of David... where God forgave a distressed and tormented David for murdering the husband of that woman who must have known David was home and could see her bathing.

Anyway, it's the sacrifice that had to be perfect, not the priest, per se. The priest was made ceremonially clean then dressed in his ceremonial garb, having been previously anointed as priest... and followed the usual procedure to offer an animal... But, in reality, if a human sheds a human's blood, it's human blood that must be shed, according to the Noah-law... (and not just any old human... but the human who actually did the deed. No wonder the whole world was offering human sacrifices, back in the day... and the non-mythology of the time says rich people offered slaves in their place... good luck with that.) If I were to guess, I'd say Jesus was the scapegoat sacrifice, in their eyes... not the Lamb of God.

As for the chosen people aspect... Is it your view that the rest of mankind was--from the time that Abram found grace, 'til the second gospel of the NT--born only to die? For what purpose did the Creator create those people? If I were to guess, I'd say we're missing the main point: Because the Creator created us all. If only some were born chosen, then the rest of the people are dead because God wanted it that way... in other words, it's not their fault. And in my opinion, that's not God at all. If the only way humankind knows what God IS comes from the order of the Universe... then the whole Earth is under the Law of the Universe: Order. And from the time the child is able to follow the good and fight against the bad (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito) the child knows the right thing to do... NOW it becomes a choice for which the child alone is responsible. And how else is punishment valid, anyway?