Head Coverings? Woman pastors?

[OwenW]

And since none of those is described in scripture as any kind of deacon, presbyter, or bishop--the worship leaders and pastors of the early churches--we can say with assurance that there is nothing in scripture that points to women clergy.


Yes, but I think your idea of "multiple passages" being necessary to establish any doctrine is wrong.

Please don't erroneously build a doctrine or try to prove a point by using the absence of something as Biblical proof. As the Bible was written in a male dominated society, women leaders were not present anywhere, not just in the Bible. Your basis for your point is faulty. Prove something with actual scripture, rather than trying to prove it with absence of scripture.

The examples I referred specifically to occurred before any church positions existed. So to say the women involved were not in official church positions at the time is highly faulty, those positions did not exist at the time, so there were no men in them at that particular time either! The poin is THE FIRST preacher of the resurrected Christ was a woman. Please disprove this if you disagree, using actual scripture. Oh, while I'm at it, since you mentioned it... please point where you find a male worship leader in the Bible in the church??? I'd be curious to who you are referring to was a worship leader in the books in the New Testament? Your comment is faulty.

Secondly, just saying my point is wrong does not prove it is wrong. Thank you for your (faulty) opinion on the matter, but you are wrong. Doctrine MUST be established on a clear consensus of scripture to prove it as scriptural. To do otherwise leaves far too much room for erroneous interpretation, people using their own opinion, with one badly interpreted passage to prove a point that clearly contradicts the rest of the Bible etc. being able to show a truth through a multitude of passages gives strength to it being scriptural. Otherwise, things just become private and personal interpretations rather than God's truth. Too often, people use the Bible to push their own opinions using one passage. A lot of false doctrine finds its roots in the use of lone passages that have been lifted out of context. Context includes: the surrounding verses, the surrounding chapters, the entire book of the Bible under discussion, the Testament (New/Old), and the context of the entire scriptures. To interpret a verse without consideration of all those contexts is to breed error.

 

[Monk Brendan]

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

I think that was a paraphrase to fit the OP

 

[Albion]

Please don't erroneously build a doctrine or try to prove a point by using the absence of something as Biblical proof.

I didn't do that, Owen. But having explained this very issue several times on different forums lately, I may have abbreviated my remarks here. The fact is that there is a total lack of evidence in scripture FOR women's ordination COUPLED WITH clearly spelled out qualifications which are exclusively male AND ALSO the history of the early church in action. And multiple verses, if that is critical. THAT is about as strong a case against as can be made.

As the Bible was written in a male dominated society

So, you'd say that it isn't the word of God, isn't divine revelation? No, I can't agree to a proposition like that. If we were to do so, what in Scripture is not immune to someone saying "I don't think that applies today?"

women leaders were not present anywhere, not just in the Bible.

This not only misses the point but is quite untrue. There were indeed women in leadership in both the early Christian churches and in other religions. But "leaders" is not what we're talking about when the subject is women's ordination (women as deacons, elders/presbyters, and/or bishops).

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure the subject is women's ordination in the classic terms you'd understand it, Albion. Is a "pastor" in a contemporary denomination like the Baptists or others without a threefold order even ordained in the sense you're referring to here? Or are they something else?

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure the subject is women's ordination in the classic terms you'd understand it, Albion. Is a "pastor" in a contemporary denomination like the Baptists or others without a threefold order even ordained in the sense you're referring to here? Or are they something else?

Just between you and me, I find it difficult to latch onto just the right words when discussing this subject (and some others) with WOF, Baptists, and non-denominational Christians, etc. So I approximate occasionally in order to make the points without the usual language of our church or those like it. 'Ordination' and 'clergy' can cause difficulties, too.

I pondered that one (pastor) for a couple of minutes but decided that it might make its point better than some other one. I'd already used 'elders' which is often misinterpreted just like 'deacon,' and, yes, 'pastor' are. But, in the end, maybe you're right that 'pastor' wasn't the best choice.

 

[Paidiske]

I was making a bigger point, actually. Once you've abandoned the historic three-fold order, and any sense of ordination as it was practised for most of church history, are you still doing the same thing? Is a Baptist pastor fundamentally the same thing as a Catholic priest, or a very different thing?

And if he's a different thing - as I suspect many of us would argue - then do the old arguments about women in the three-fold order even apply to this new reality?

To put it another way, you've argued often that women may do many good things but may not be deacons, presbyters or bishops. If a Baptist pastor is not a deacon, presbyter or bishop, then may that pastor not be a woman?

(This is leaving aside the other argument I suspect you and I will never resolve, about women in the three-fold order, but that's not specifically what the OP asked).

 

[geiroffenberg]

head coverings are cultural. It would be totally against the gospel to demand it in a western society. In Pauls day it was done in order to no lay a stumbling block for the spread of the gospel as people couldnt accept woman speaking or praying in a congregation, unless they were under autority (which is the meaning of head coverings, read the greek words in 1 cor 11, it say they put a "exusian" on their heads, a autority.

woman pastors or not is a non issue. Becuase what we call pastors to day, a formal top "leader" of a local church, much like a ceo of a company, has nothing to do with the ministries of pastor in the new testament. the term pastor used for a church body is only found one place, and even there it is not "pastor" but pastoral teacher, if you respect the greek grammar. ALl the rest of the NT it is simply called a teacher. This is provable. And further, in ef 4, the only place where pastor as a ministry is mentioned, it is only one out of 4 ministries. And in the context, paul is telling EVERYBODY in the church to take heed of their calling, and then he explains these 4 major callings he gave to each and everyone, some apostle, some prophet, some evanglist and some pastors/teachers. If some "pharasee" say woman can't be pastors because of how these "professors" treat the bible as a book of rules without udnerstanding its meaning, they deny 50% of the church pastors to do Gods calling! THat can NOT be good for the church or anybody. IF its true that in christ there is no difference between men and woman, then THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Paul wasnt telling woman to shut up in church, but to not force feminism on a culture before the gospel, because the gospel takes care of that anyway. No TRUE believer can ever put male over females to the point they deny woman any calling or ministry.

 

[marineimaging]

head coverings are cultural. It would be totally against the gospel to demand it in a western society. In Pauls day it was done in order to no lay a stumbling block for the spread of the gospel as people couldnt accept woman speaking or praying in a congregation, unless they were under autority (which is the meaning of head coverings, read the greek words in 1 cor 11, it say they put a "exusian" on their heads, a autority.

woman pastors or not is a non issue. Becuase what we call pastors to day, a formal top "leader" of a local church, much like a ceo of a company, has nothing to do with the ministries of pastor in the new testament. the term pastor used for a church body is only found one place, and even there it is not "pastor" but pastoral teacher, if you respect the greek grammar. ALl the rest of the NT it is simply called a teacher. This is provable. And further, in ef 4, the only place where pastor as a ministry is mentioned, it is only one out of 4 ministries. And in the context, paul is telling EVERYBODY in the church to take heed of their calling, and then he explains these 4 major callings he gave to each and everyone, some apostle, some prophet, some evanglist and some pastors/teachers. If some "pharasee" say woman can't be pastors because of how these "professors" treat the bible as a book of rules without udnerstanding its meaning, they deny 50% of the church pastors to do Gods calling! THat can NOT be good for the church or anybody. IF its true that in christ there is no difference between men and woman, then THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Paul wasnt telling woman to shut up in church, but to not force feminism on a culture before the gospel, because the gospel takes care of that anyway. No TRUE believer can ever put male over females to the point they deny woman any calling or ministry.

Wow, you had me right up to declaring that no "TRUE believer"... Sorry, but you are wrong. No, not sorry. You are just wrong. You are not drawing from the only references to the roles of each of us being men and women in the congregation and are right up there at the level of insulting those of us who have given our lives to Christ Jesus. Yep, pretty much self anointed are we?

 

[Episaw]

There is no longer jew or greek, slave or free, male or female. It comes down to whether you take this as the definitive biblical answer, or the epistle writing that appeals to church structure in which women weren't to rule over men in teaching. Not allowed by Paul in any of the churches. One of these answers is an authorities declaration credited to God. The other is in authorities canon yet not written in thus saith the Lord application. Both can't be the biblical imperative. Only one can be deemed God'said. That is where the argument lies. 2 sides that adhere to the position they consider authoritive.
I based my decision on which would be a greater sin if I were wrong in my interpretation. Oops, I accepted a woman to be my pastor. Or oops, I denied a woman the right to be equal in Christ with myself. This isn't the husband wife situation of equality of person with difference of ppsition. To me this is there is no longer male or female.

Your post does not hold water as you have based your comments on a wrong interpretation of the verse. The verse relates to salvation, not position or ministry in the church. In other words, when it comes to salvation there is no distinction.

 

[Grandpa2390]

women are not to be Teachers/elders/pastors/Bishops/etc. These terms all mean the same things.
But they can be evangelists. There is nothing to stop a woman from going out and witnessing. Nothing to stop her from teaching other women and children. But she cannot teach men in the church.

There were female prophets in the Old Testament, but there are no prophets on the Earth today.
This was not just a cultural issue, C.S. Lewis has a great piece about whether women should lead the church. He makes some excellent points. It actually boils down to the order set by God. From who leads in a marriage, to who leads the church, to how we relate to God. For that matter, it is very important that we relate to God as our Father rather than our mother.

 

[Episaw]

And since none of those is described in scripture as any kind of deacon, presbyter, or bishop--the worship leaders and pastors of the early churches--we can say with assurance that there is nothing in scripture that points to women clergy.

Yes, but I think your idea of "multiple passages" being necessary to establish any doctrine is wrong.

I agree and disagree. I have seen this claim umpteen times that because a woman was the first to tell of the resurrected Christ, it qualify's her to be an Elder which is complete nonsense.

Second I was taught you NEVER form a doctrine on one verse of scripture. The more there are the better as the Bible is its best interpreter.

 

[Episaw]

women are not to be Teachers/elders/pastors/Bishops/etc. These terms all mean the same things.
But they can be evangelists. There is nothing to stop a woman from going out and witnessing. Nothing to stop her from teaching other women and children. But she cannot teach men in the church.

There were female prophets in the Old Testament, but there are no prophets on the Earth today.
This was not just a cultural issue, C.S. Lewis has a great piece about whether women should lead the church. He makes some excellent points. It actually boils down to the order set by God. From who leads in a marriage, to who leads the church, to how we relate to God. For that matter, it is very important that we relate to God as our Father rather than our mother.

Yes and no. Women can have the ministry of a shepherd but a shepherd is not an Elder. An Elder can have the ministry of a shepherd but he is first an Elder who had a ministry of a shepherd as some Elders do not have the ministry of a shepherd.

Plus there are plenty of Prophets today. All you have to do is read a few books on the subject and you will discover who they are.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Yes and no. Women can have the ministry of a shepherd but a shepherd is not an Elder. An Elder can have the ministry of a shepherd but he is first an Elder who had a ministry of a shepherd as some Elders do not have the ministry of a shepherd.

Plus there are plenty of Prophets today. All you have to do is read a few books on the subject and you will discover who they are.

I think perhaps our definition of a prophet is different? Now I am talking about prophets as in the Old Testament. Not as in teachers. Otherwise we will just have to agree to disagree. the Bible was written, the revelation is closed. There is no more need for Prophets. I used to attend a charismatic church, so I am familiar with modern "prophets".
But... no. the foundation of the church is established no the apostles and the prophets. The foundation is established. the apostles and prophets are gone.

 

[Episaw]

I think perhaps our definition of a prophet is different? Now I am talking about prophets as in the Old Testament. Not as in teachers. Otherwise we will just have to agree to disagree. the Bible was written, the revelation is closed. There is no more need for Prophets. I used to attend a charismatic church, so I am familiar with modern "prophets". But... no.

it is only closed to dispensationalists which was the teaching of J.N. Darby and gave place to the Brethren movement which shunned the supernatural. Having been to a Brethren Bible College and attended a charismatic Brethren church for 10 years I know how the cookie crumbles.

And I am not talking about prophets as teachers. Never have, never will. I am talking about people with the ministry of a prophet as opposed to prophesying to give encouragement.

If the prophet is no longer because the revelation is closed then is the apostle, evangelist, shepherd, and teacher no longer needed as they were all given to mature the saints. As the saints are not matured then common sense will tell you we need all of them still.

The fact that we believe that we don't need them suggests to me we have shot ourselves in the foot because we have ignored that which we need for our benefit.

To say we don't need them is to say that Jesus did not know what he was doing when he gave them as gifts to the church.

 

[Grandpa2390]

If the prophet is no longer because the revelation is closed then is the apostle, evangelist, shepherd, and teacher no longer needed as they were all given to mature the saints. As the saints are not matured then common sense will tell you we need all of them still.

.

The Apostle is definitely closed. There were specific criteria to called an apostle. Mainly that you had to be chosen directly by christ and witness the resurrected Christ.

Evangelist, shepherds, teachers are all here. They are the church. The apostles and the prophets laid the foundation. Now we have what they prophesied. They were the first with the baton in this relay race. Now the evangelist, shepherds, teachers, etc. are passing it till the end of the race.

The fact that we believe that we don't need them suggests to me we have shot ourselves in the foot because we have ignored that which we need for our benefit.

To say we don't need them is to say that Jesus did not know what he was doing when he gave them as gifts to the church

only you seem to think that we don't need the evangelists, teachers, pastors, etc.
I don't think you quite understand what a prophet is. A prophet speaks for God.
A prophet is the mouth piece of God. That means that you can write down what a prophet says, and add it to your Bible.

You can't do that with a teacher or an evangelist. They are just repeating the Words of God.
We are just going to have to disagree. because you are not going to be able to convince me that anyone on this Earth today is a real prophet. They may be a very inspiring speaker. Or God may place in their heart things to say. But that does not make them a prophet. We should all be prophets if that is your definition.

 

[Episaw]

The Apostle is definitely closed. There were specific criteria to called an apostle. Mainly that you had to be chosen directly by christ and witness the resurrected Christ.

Evangelist, shepherds, teachers are all here. They are the church. The apostles and the prophets laid the foundation. Now we have what they prophesied. They were the first with the baton in this relay race. Now the evangelist, shepherds, teachers, etc. are passing it till the end of the race.


only you seem to think that we don't need the evangelists, teachers, pastors, etc.
I don't think you quite understand what a prophet is. A prophet speaks for God.
A prophet is the mouth piece of God. That means that you can write down what a prophet says, and add it to your Bible.

You can't do that with a teacher or an evangelist. They are just repeating the Words of God.

Thankyou for your opinion for that is all it is and quite frankly not worth a reply.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Thankyou for your opinion for that is all it is and quite frankly not worth a reply.

and yet you replied???

No this is scriptural.

to be an apostle you had to be chosen by Christ and witness him resurrected
Mark 3:13; Acts 1:22–24

There were only 13 apostles

1 Corinthians 12:28
gives us an order of chronology. first were the 13 apostles. Then the prophets (as the word was not written down yet, so prophets were necessary). then the teachers.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Thankyou for your opinion for that is all it is and quite frankly not worth a reply.

If your "prophets" never contradict or add to the Bible, then perhaps it will be benign. But there is always the danger that someone will abuse this confidence you put in them. I recommend you read on the topic and if you still disagree, then you hold these prophets to the judgment that the Bible commands. If they ever prophesy something that is wrong, they are not of God. (and technically should be put to death). There is none of this "he is right 90% of the time" nonsense if we are judging prophets.

Surely you know this right? I can't stop you from believing in prophets, but I do pray that you will judge them the way prophets ought to be judged.

Are There Prophets Today?

 

[Episaw]

If your "prophets" never contradict or add to the Bible, then perhaps it will be benign. But there is always the danger that someone will abuse this confidence you put in them. I recommend you read on the topic and if you still disagree, then you hold these prophets to the judgment that the Bible commands. If they ever prophesy something that is wrong, they are not of God. (and technically should be put to death). There is none of this "he is right 90% of the time" nonsense if we are judging prophets.

Surely you know this right? I can't stop you from believing in prophets, but I do pray that you will judge them the way prophets ought to be judged.

Are There Prophets Today?

We were not discussing the correctness of their prophesying. We were discussing whether they existed or not today.

I find that when you challenge the validity of a claim that does not hold water, the writer has a tendency to go off on a tangent to avoid admitting their ideas are not kosher. it is known as a red herring.

 

[Episaw]

and yet you replied???

No this is scriptural.

to be an apostle you had to be chosen by Christ and witness him resurrected
Mark 3:13; Acts 1:22–24

There were only 13 apostles

1 Corinthians 12:28
gives us an order of chronology. first were the 13 apostles. Then the prophets (as the word was not written down yet, so prophets were necessary). then the teachers.

Sorry, but I did not reply. All I did was say that I wasn't going to reply and that is not a reply that is a rebuff.