The difficulty here is that many folks conflate gifts of the Spirit with roles in the church as well as in other spheres of life. Being in leadership is a role, not a gift.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't want to deny it at all - of course God does not give us all the same role to play in life.
What I dispute is that he has said that he will never allow, or call, women to be ordained or give them the gift of Pastor, Ephesians 4:11; and if they claim otherwise, they are mistaken/lying.
Not at all.
The gifts of the Spirit are not distributed to only one gender; men and women can be teachers, evangelists, pastors, serve others, have the gift of administration, be givers and so on. Nowhere did Paul say, "these 5 are for men only" or "the Lord will never give a woman that gift, not call her to that role."
Name some.Absolutely there are! Many NT verses attest to it.
No. I look into the NT and evidence from the old times, while you took traditions from the 2nd century onward, more or less selected in later centuries to fit into the new outline of the then church.Whether I agree or disagree now, it looks like your point is that you want to believe what you want to believe while I am referring to what the Christian church has done and believed and understood since antiquity and what the Bible itself supports.
She is the only deacon known by name in the NT. There is no male example. And we have female deacons mentioned in 1.Tim 3:11. The fact that we have more information about female deacons than of male deacons is not persuasive for the existence of female deacons?No, it isn't. The idea that Phoebe, out of all the women in the church, was the one and only known woman deacon in the early church, (or even later) is not very persuasive.
Where do you know it from? It is not in the NT.Especially, when we know that the churches of the first centuries DID have deaconesses.
Yes, there are differences between NT and later times. It starts with making a difference between presbuteros and episkopos, two terms for the same role, and ends up at forbidding marriages of "clergymen". It is no surprise to find other deviations from NT times, whether conscious or as a sort of misunderstanding tradition.And i8f Phoebe had been a deacon rather than a deaconess, it would mean that the qualifications for being a deacon, which are spelled out in the NT, had been set aside wrongly.
The prodigal son didn't mean orthodox church, but "orthodox" in the sense of "correct teaching", or even "lutheran orthodoxy". While in virtually any "revival" (including reformation) the situation of women was strengthened, orthodox Lutheranism and orthodox Calvinism did not allow woman to become pastors.You might be very surprised to hear the Orthodox side of the story about the schism of 1054.
That's not true for every instance. Some may drift away out of ignorance. Even moves that are honestly intended as moves away from the "world" can be moves away from what the Bible teaches.The drifting away from biblical truths is a compromise the church in general in all denominations is trying to be friends of the world
Whether the distinction of roles and gifts can be mantained in the light of the NT, theologicans disagree.The difficulty here is that many folks conflate gifts of the Spirit with roles in the church as well as in other spheres of life. Being in leadership is a role, not a gift.
The difficulty here is that many folks conflate gifts of the Spirit with roles in the church as well as in other spheres of life. Being in leadership is a role, not a gift.
What I said about a church leader that has to be married can be backed up from the bible. It is the normal case assumed in the pastoral letters, while your distinction of laity and clergy is nowhere in the NT.
She is the only deacon known by name in the NT. There is no male example.
Where do you know it from? It is not in the NT.
I don't know about that; some can lead and some can't. Some are born leaders, others are much happier behind the scenes.
If someone is in the role of leader and has no ability to lead, make decisions, take a stand and inspire those in their team/office/congregation, people soon know about it. Maybe you have never met bad leaders, or suffered from bad leadership? Some people want the high positions because of the status, and/or money involved; but they have no ability to do the job.
Same with the other gifts; would someone call themselves, or take a role as, an evangelist, without a gift for evangelism?
Those God calls, he equips for service.
It's possible that someone who has never led/evangelised/preached etc, or wanted to, is called to do just that - God will then give them the ability to do so.
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.Hi. I grew up in a Catholic family, lived an atheist life of sin and returned to God through Catholicism. I knew nothing about other denominations.
My big issue was with Marion devotion, my parents being Portuguese are devoted to Our Lady of Fatima. But when I inquired about it in a Catholic forum I was labelled a Protestant.
"What is that?" So I looked into it. I always thought that Catholics where the original religion which held the bible sacred and then the denominations split off with new books, dogmas and doctrines. I was shocked to learn that its the Catholics that have a heap of other stuff besides the bible.
I learnt about "sola scripture" and that the protestants adhere to the bible and so began to wonder if I was even a Catholic anymore or a Protestant now as I believe in sola scripture and not the opportunity for humans to add doctrines to it without any bible foundation.
So now I"m surprised to learn that there are female priests in the Protestant priesthood.
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Timothy 2:11-14 ESV
Scripture is quite clear on that topic, what happened "sola scripture" in this case?
Of course there are many in leadership who ought not to be. The fact that they are bad leaders is not because they do not possess any "gift of leadership" but that they fail to meet the biblical qualifications for a leader as given in passages such as I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
In both passages there is no mention of any such thing as a "gift of leadership"; rather, leadership is couched in terms of a man's desire to become an elder.
The catch-phrase "Those God calls, he equips for service." which is extremely popular, is of modern origin and its biblical base is indirect, at best.
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.
If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).
So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.
So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.
And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.
When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.
Radical change, at that moment.
This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.
In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.
Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.
Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.
So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.
They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.
And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...
Does that make sense?
Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.
You and me -- all of us.
Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.
So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.
If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.
Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.
Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.
@Hazelelponi
@Athanasius377
@Albion
@Chadrho
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.
If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).
So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.
So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.
And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.
When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.
Radical change, at that moment.
This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.
In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.
Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.
Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.
So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.
They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.
And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...
Does that make sense?
Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.
You and me -- all of us.
Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.
So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.
If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.
Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.
Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.
@Hazelelponi
@Athanasius377
@Albion
@Chadrho
Sorry! I do think it won't make sense without reading through Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians 8 as part of what is said, and one needs to be familiar with how the epistles tell slaves to remain slaves (several instances), but then later to seek their freedom if possible, and then the amazing letter to Philemon -- all of these are part of the meaning I was talking about. After we have read all of these, we begin to see why slaves were told to remain slaves, and then latter an opposite instruction is given. It begins to make sense, and then we also learn how, when, why and what next about other questions, including the way women are to be in the church even (*), which depends on the actual effect on others in the church, as part of how we gain freedoms in Christ, but not freedom that we can do without regard to others.I am not sure how to respond because though I read this post no less than five times I still do not understand the point you were trying to make.
The prodigal son didn't mean orthodox church, but "orthodox" in the sense of "correct teaching", or even "lutheran orthodoxy". While in virtually any "revival" (including reformation) the situation of women was strengthened, orthodox Lutheranism and orthodox Calvinism did not allow woman to become pastors.
If a person feels they can read a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, and then reach a conclusion, they have not listened as they should, because Paul and Peter and John and James were not writing to us just a few sentences, that they would expect us to hear only a piece and not the rest.
If we listen, then we need to read fully through entire books, all passages, in time, with the humble attitude of hearing and learning, instead of trying to have a doctrine affirmed (which is not listening).
So, we would eventually read -- as we progress, over time -- also 1rst Corinthians, and Romans.
So, in time we should totally absorb the teaching to us in Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8.
And when we do we will learn why slaves were told to remain slaves, several times, yet later to seek freedom, seemingly opposite instruction, and the radical, revolutionary quality of the letter of Paul to Philemon.
When we see Paul writing to Philemon it might seem a total 180 turn Paul makes in Philemon -- now instead of remaining a slave, instead of telling slaves as before to remain only cheerful servants, now the message is instead to the slave owner to treat the slave as entirely equal not only to himself, but as if the slave were Paul, in terms of total respect and equality.
Radical change, at that moment.
This would seem contradiction if we didn't also read Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians chapter 8, and learn the key principle.
In any given moment in time, and in any place, you, yourself, -- all of us, each one -- must give up perfectly good and fine freedoms, when needed, for the sake of the weak, so that they not be destroyed, in their weakness.
Even though that freedom we must give up around others is perfectly fine and ok in and of itself, and a part of our freedom in Christ.
Even though it's a good freedom, we have to sacrifice it at times, depending on the needs of others, that the weak have a chance.
So, in a moment in the 1rst century when weak men were being destroyed and their souls lost forever because of woman speaking up in the services, which women had not even been in services with men previous to the new Gospel, in that widespread new situation, those women were to sacrifice that new freedom.
They were to be quiet, for the sake of the weak, that the weak not be destroyed.
And so also slaves were to remain slaves, so long as their master was not yet converted, and not yet able to be strong in faith enough to treat them in the revolutionary new way as entire full equals in all ways, as Paul tells Philemon to do...
Does that make sense?
Today, you, yourself, must give up freedoms at certain moments and places and times, as needed, for the sake of the weak. You.
You and me -- all of us.
Today. The message from 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 is not only for some people long ago.
So, if in your own church today, there are weak women who today feel that they should be able to participate in speaking in some ways in church, but you'd rather your preference was men only, then now, today, you yourself must sacrifice as needed for their sake.
If you don't think the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 message applies to you today, then pray for guidance on this, and ask humbly to be led to accepting the instructions to us.
Those who are indeed humble and willing to hear all of scripture, all of the epistles fully, and are more long in reading, and have read through, we are to bring all the parts together, not insist on flawed doctrines that are only traditions of men, but instead to take in all the key messages, instead of only some.
Slaves no longer are required to remain slaves. Yet, there are places and times where a Christian should remain a 'slave' in some sense, as needed, for the sake of the lost and the weak. Women in the U.S. no longer destroy weak men by speaking up, in most churches, so long as they speak with true humility and faith, in accord with all the meanings of God's word. They no longer are required in most places in the U.S. today to be silent to protect weak men. But there may indeed be some places, some churches, were this old sacrifice is still required.
@Hazelelponi
@Athanasius377
@Albion
@Chadrho
I am familiar with the scripture you quoted. So I will come right out and ask you, what is your position and how does 1 cor 8 and rom 14 and Phil fit? Be specific because your clarification was less of a word salad than the first but a word salad none the less. I am not trying to be offensive rather pointing out the posts lack category distinctions thus making it difficult to understand your point(s).Sorry! I do think it won't make sense without reading through Romans chapter 14 and 1rst Corinthians 8 as part of what is said, and one needs to be familiar with how the epistles tell slaves to remain slaves (several instances), but then later to seek their freedom if possible, and then the amazing letter to Philemon -- all of these are part of the meaning I was talking about. After we have read all of these, we begin to see why slaves were told to remain slaves, and then latter an opposite instruction is given. It begins to make sense, and then we also learn how, when, why and what next about other questions, including the way women are to be in the church even (*), which depends on the actual effect on others in the church, as part of how we gain freedoms in Christ, but not freedom that we can do without regard to others.
-------
*- (women weren't told to be silent for no reason at all, but for a definite reason, which we can learn by this wide reading in scripture)
Ok, to better communicate clearly, it will help if I understand just what part I'm not communicating well, and one thing I think would help is to find out if you yourself think you should literally give up eating meat if vegetarian that is weak in faith joins your congregation and invites you to his house, and you invite him at some point -- do you think you should not eat meat around him? I'd guess you'd say yes, you'd go vegetarian around him and also at all places he'd normally hear of also(!) -- like at any other gathering involving members of the church he'd get to know and hear about -- you do this for his sake, because he needs this, being weak. Right? You would give up meat for his sake?I am familiar with the scripture you quoted. So I will come right out and ask you, what is your position and how does 1 cor 8 and rom 14 and Phil fit? Be specific because your clarification was less of a word salad than the first but a word salad none the less. I am not trying to be offensive rather pointing out the posts lack category distinctions thus making it difficult to understand your point(s).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?