Women becoming pastors?

[Strong in Him]

That something is happening does not mean that its God showing his allowance or choice.

Christian, born again, Spirit filled women; children of God, are testifying that God has called them to do what they are doing - and God is blessing and inspiring them, instead of rebuking and correcting.
Why would God allow it if it is not his will? Does he no longer lead his children? Is his Holy Spirit unable to convict them of sin (though why it should be a sin to preach the Gospel, is anyone's guess)? Why would God listen to women saying "God called me to do this", know perfectly well that he hadn't but be unwilling to do anything about it?

If God can raise up worshippers from stones, Luke 19:40, he can raise up men to be leaders in HIS Church, if this is HIS will - yet in many places, he's raising up women.

 

[trophy33]

Christian, born again, Spirit filled women; children of God, are testifying that God has called them to do what they are doing - and God is blessing and inspiring them, instead of rebuking and correcting.
Why would God allow it if it is not his will? Does he no longer lead his children? Is his Holy Spirit unable to convict them of sin (though why it should be a sin to preach the Gospel, is anyone's guess)? Why would God listen to women saying "God called me to do this", know perfectly well that he hadn't but be unwilling to do anything about it?

If God can raise up worshippers from stones, Luke 19:40, he can raise up men to be leaders in HIS Church, if this is HIS will - yet in many places, he's raising up women.

With your attitude, you can make every evil right, you will just need to find real or invented stories of self proclaimed born again Christians doing it.
It may be homosexuality, homosexual pastors, money-centered gospel, women pastors, divorced and remarried pastors etc.

 

[Strong in Him]

With your attitude, you can make every evil right,

Preaching the Gospel is evil??
Visiting and ministering to the sick, making disciples, baptising etc etc are evil?? Which Scripture says that then?

you will just need to find real or invented stories of self proclaimed born again Christians doing it.

I'm sorry that you neither believe the testimonies of your sisters in Christ - who are saved just as much as you are, nor the accounts of what God is doing in his church today.
It won't change anything; it's simply your loss.

It may be homosexuality, homosexual pastors, money-centered gospel, women pastors, divorced and remarried pastors etc.

It's not the first time that the "sin" of women who are pastors has been lumped together with the sin of homosexuality. It's a shame, but it suggests to me that no rational argument can be made against them, so let's just accuse them of sinning.

 

[trophy33]

Preaching the Gospel is evil??

Gospel should be preached properly. Not by homosexual pastors, divorced pastors or female pastors.

Not sure what you mean by that no rational argument can be made against them. Its simply against the Bible.

 

[Strong in Him]

Gospel should be preached properly. Not by homosexual pastors, divorced pastors or female pastors.

Jesus allowed a foreign woman, who had had 5 husbands, and a woman who had had 7 demons cast out of her to preach his word.
Jesus called a tax collector, political zealot and men who would deny and betray him to be his disciples, preach the Gospel, drive out demons and see, and do, miracles. He didn't wait for people to become perfect before he chose, called and used them.
Women preach the same Gospel as men do.

And if you are saying that if someone's partner has had an affair, walked out on them and later filed for divorce - and this prevents and excludes their divorced but innocent ex partner of preaching the Gospel; you're wrong.

Not sure what you mean by that no rational argument can be made against them.

I mean that there comes a point in these debates/arguments when people are asked why God allows it to happen/why he is calling women today etc, and the only answer they seem able to give is, "well he allows homosexuality/sin etc".

Its simply against the Bible.

As God called, worked and spoke through a female judge, female prophets, queens and servant girls; as Jesus allowed women to follow him, speak for him and be his witnesses, as the early church had female workers, apostles, prophetesses, teachers etc - it's clearly not against the Bible.

If God didn't want this to happen today, he wouldn't call women to do this and men to agree, train and anoint them. He wouldn't speak to them through his word, he wouldn't go against his word.
My guess is that you're thinking, "he doesn't".
All that means is that you won't accept that your reading of Scripture is wrong. You can't be wrong, neither, obviously, can God, so it's much easier to dismiss, and write off, thousands of Christian women as being mistaken, deluded, disobedient feminists.

All over the church God is raising up women to serve him and men are agreeing, training, ordaining and ministering alongside them. You may not like or accept it; doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus allowed a foreign woman, who had had 5 husbands, and a woman who had had 7 demons cast out of her to preach his word.
Jesus called a tax collector, political zealot and men who would deny and betray him to be his disciples, preach the Gospel, drive out demons and see, and do, miracles. He didn't wait for people to become perfect before he chose, called and used them.
Women preach the same Gospel as men do.

And if you are saying that if someone's partner has had an affair, walked out on them and later filed for divorce - and this prevents and excludes their divorced but innocent ex partner of preaching the Gospel; you're wrong.



I mean that there comes a point in these debates/arguments when people are asked why God allows it to happen/why he is calling women today etc, and the only answer they seem able to give is, "well he allows homosexuality/sin etc".



As God called, worked and spoke through a female judge, female prophets, queens and servant girls; as Jesus allowed women to follow him, speak for him and be his witnesses, as the early church had female workers, apostles, prophetesses, teachers etc - it's clearly not against the Bible.

If God didn't want this to happen today, he wouldn't call women to do this and men to agree, train and anoint them. He wouldn't speak to them through his word, he wouldn't go against his word.
My guess is that you're thinking, "he doesn't".
All that means is that you won't accept that your reading of Scripture is wrong. You can't be wrong, neither, obviously, can God, so it's much easier to dismiss, and write off, thousands of Christian women as being mistaken, deluded, disobedient feminists.

All over the church God is raising up women to serve him and men are agreeing, training, ordaining and ministering alongside them. You may not like or accept it; doesn't mean it's not happening.

I see 2 main problems with your chain of thoughts:

a) You are mixing the common order and exceptions.
- even a donkey once taught a prophet; it does not mean God allows donkeys to serve in the Church or to have authority over prophets

b) You are making doctrine from what sometimes somebody did instead of what is said to be done.
- for example, Paul once had a terrible argument with Barnabas, but we are told to be peaceful; which is more important? History is not a doctrine.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I see 2 main problems with your chain of thoughts:

a) You are mixing the common order and exceptions.
- even donkey once taught a prophet; it does not mean God allows donkeys to serve in the Church or to have authority over prophets

b) You are making doctrine from what sometimes somebody did instead of what is said to be done.
- for example, Paul once had a terrible argument with Barnabas, but we are told to be peaceful; which is more important? History is not a doctrine.

This holds true beyond the Church; the actions and practices of others are used to justify actions, practices and policies that would have been considered immoral or unethical, heterodox, heretical within my memory; one needs to look no further than the front page of the newspaper.

 

[Strong in Him]

I see 2 main problems with your chain of thoughts:

a) You are mixing the common order and exceptions.
- even a donkey once taught a prophet; it does not mean God allows donkeys to serve in the Church or to have authority over prophets

But some people say, or have said, that the words Paul wrote to Timothy were commands from the Lord and for all churches.
If they were; if it was God's will that women would never teach, or lead, over men, we would have seen that happening from the beginning. God would have made that very clear in his word, by word and example.
He would not have raised up Deborah to be a judge, or Huldah, Miriam, Isaiah's wife or Philip's daughters to be prophets. Jesus would have affirmed that women should stay at home, mind the kids and not be allowed to do anything for God - yet we see Jesus allowing women to speak for him, learn from him and, in a society where women were considered to be unreliable witnesses, he CHOSE one to be the first witness to the resurrection. The early church allowed women to meet with them in the upper room before Pentecost. They had a number of issues and opponents to the Gospel - but not once did they meet to discuss why women were being allowed to proclaim the Good News. Why would they? If Jesus allowed it, it was clearly good enough for them. Paul had a number of female co-workers, taught women how to pray and prophesy and knew that Priscilla had taught Apollos. He did not say that the gifts of Pastor, Ephesians 4:11, nor teacher, 1 Corinthians 12:28, were only for men. Yet some people expect us to believe that in spite of all this, and in one of the last letters he ever wrote, he suddenly said "God has commanded me to say that women should not teach, or even speak, in church."

b) You are making doctrine from what sometimes somebody did instead of what is said to be done.
- for example, Paul once had a terrible argument with Barnabas, but we are told to be peaceful; which is more important? History is not a doctrine.

No, it's not.
History is HIS Story - the story of God at work among his people. If it was against God's will, plan and command for women to teach or lead men, he would not have ever raised them up to do so - EVER. He would not have done one thing and commanded another.
Jesus taught, and showed, us God's will. Look at how he treated women - who were downtrodden in society at that time - and look at how some sections of his church, who are supposed to be loving as he loved, treats us today. Even on these forums, I have been told that I am deceived, disobedient and certainly not called by God to preach the Gospel - this, from people who have no idea about how God has called me and what he is doing in my life.
I know that some others feel the same.

 

[Strong in Him]

This holds true beyond the Church; the actions and practices of others are used to justify actions, practices and policies that would have been considered immoral or unethical, heterodox, heretical within my memory; one needs to look no further than the front page of the newspaper.

By non Christians - yes.
By those who are born again, Spirit filled children of God who are trusting him for guidance, to show them how to serve him and for correction if they are getting it wrong? I think not.

But clearly it's easier for some to blame women for disobedience, or being feminists, than admit that their reading and/or understanding of Scripture may be wrong.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But some people say, or have said, that the words Paul wrote to Timothy were commands from the Lord and for all churches.
If they were; if it was God's will that women would never teach, or lead, over men, we would have seen that happening from the beginning. God would have made that very clear in his word, by word and example.
He would not have raised up Deborah to be a judge, or Huldah, Miriam, Isaiah's wife or Philip's daughters to be prophets. Jesus would have affirmed that women should stay at home, mind the kids and not be allowed to do anything for God - yet we see Jesus allowing women to speak for him, learn from him and, in a society where women were considered to be unreliable witnesses, he CHOSE one to be the first witness to the resurrection. The early church allowed women to meet with them in the upper room before Pentecost. They had a number of issues and opponents to the Gospel - but not once did they meet to discuss why women were being allowed to proclaim the Good News. Why would they? If Jesus allowed it, it was clearly good enough for them. Paul had a number of female co-workers, taught women how to pray and prophesy and knew that Priscilla had taught Apollos. He did not say that the gifts of Pastor, Ephesians 4:11, nor teacher, 1 Corinthians 12:28, were only for men. Yet some people expect us to believe that in spite of all this, and in one of the last letters he ever wrote, he suddenly said "God has commanded me to say that women should not teach, or even speak, in church."



No, it's not.
History is HIS Story - the story of God at work among his people. If it was against God's will, plan and command for women to teach or lead men, he would not have ever raised them up to do so - EVER. He would not have done one thing and commanded another.
Jesus taught, and showed, us God's will. Look at how he treated women - who were downtrodden in society at that time - and look at how some sections of his church, who are supposed to be loving as he loved, treats us today. Even on these forums, I have been told that I am deceived, disobedient and certainly not called by God to preach the Gospel - this, from people who have no idea about how God has called me and what he is doing in my life.
I know that some others feel the same.

If this type of historic criticism is valid, then a whole pile of Scripture becomes invalid; then how do we know what is valid? Maybe nothing?

Historic criticism is an invalid interpretive standard... or the Bible is invalid; which is it?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

By non Christians - yes.
By those who are born again, Spirit filled children of God who are trusting him for guidance, to show them how to serve him and for correction if they are getting it wrong? I think not.

But clearly it's easier for some to blame women for disobedience, or being feminists, than admit that their reading and/or understanding of Scripture may be wrong.

Not so, it is still following examples of others even when at odds with God's words. Because one has faith does not mean that they can regard some and discard other parts of God's word.

 

[Strong in Him]

Not so, it is still following examples of others even when at odds with God's words. Because one has faith does not mean that they can regard some and discard other parts of God's word.

Clearly God's words have never been "women cannot preach the Gospel, speak for me or teach men" - because God himself has allowed, and does allow today, us to do just that - not only passively allowing either; actively calling.
Like I said, that you cannot accept it doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

[Strong in Him]

Historic criticism is an invalid interpretive standard... or the Bible is invalid; which is it?

Clearly, the Bible is not invalid.
That's the same Bible which describes how women were called by God to be judges, queens, prophets, deacons and speakers of God's word.

 

[trophy33]

But some people say, or have said, that the words Paul wrote to Timothy were commands from the Lord and for all churches.
If they were; if it was God's will that women would never teach, or lead, over men, we would have seen that happening from the beginning. God would have made that very clear in his word, by word and example.
He would not have raised up Deborah to be a judge, or Huldah, Miriam, Isaiah's wife or Philip's daughters to be prophets. Jesus would have affirmed that women should stay at home, mind the kids and not be allowed to do anything for God - yet we see Jesus allowing women to speak for him, learn from him and, in a society where women were considered to be unreliable witnesses, he CHOSE one to be the first witness to the resurrection. The early church allowed women to meet with them in the upper room before Pentecost. They had a number of issues and opponents to the Gospel - but not once did they meet to discuss why women were being allowed to proclaim the Good News. Why would they? If Jesus allowed it, it was clearly good enough for them. Paul had a number of female co-workers, taught women how to pray and prophesy and knew that Priscilla had taught Apollos. He did not say that the gifts of Pastor, Ephesians 4:11, nor teacher, 1 Corinthians 12:28, were only for men. Yet some people expect us to believe that in spite of all this, and in one of the last letters he ever wrote, he suddenly said "God has commanded me to say that women should not teach, or even speak, in church."



No, it's not.
History is HIS Story - the story of God at work among his people. If it was against God's will, plan and command for women to teach or lead men, he would not have ever raised them up to do so - EVER. He would not have done one thing and commanded another.
Jesus taught, and showed, us God's will. Look at how he treated women - who were downtrodden in society at that time - and look at how some sections of his church, who are supposed to be loving as he loved, treats us today. Even on these forums, I have been told that I am deceived, disobedient and certainly not called by God to preach the Gospel - this, from people who have no idea about how God has called me and what he is doing in my life.
I know that some others feel the same.

I would basically repeat what I stated before:

a) history does not base a doctrine
b) common order is not based on historical exceptions

If there are explicit instructions given to us (and there are), then they have a primacy.

 

[trophy33]

Clearly, the Bible is not invalid.
That's the same Bible which describes how women were called by God to be judges, queens, prophets, deacons and speakers of God's word.

Why do you think that old OT parts about women queens (and they were a disaster!) are valid but parts with clear explicit doctrines about women in Christianity are invalid?

 

[Strong in Him]

Why do you think that old OT parts about women queens (and they were a disaster!) are valid

Esther wasn't a disaster. She saved the Jewish race from destruction - Jews still celebrate her today.

but parts with clear explicit doctrines about women in Christianity are invalid?

I didn't say they are invalid. I'm saying:
a) they are not "clear, explicit doctrines" - since there are examples in Scripture of the very thing that they supposedly forbid.
b) just because are written in Scripture does not mean that they automatically, and logically, apply to us today. Look at the Jewish law; that's in Scripture, with strong warnings about people who disobey it. Do we in the Western, Gentile church uphold it? No. Even Jews don't offer animal sacrifices today and they no longer have a temple. This doesn't mean that the books containing the Jewish law are invalid. They are useful for us in showing God's working and interaction with his people; they instruct us, as the law was a shadow of things to come; they show us how the old covenant failed and why we needed a new one - they just aren't laws that are kept by Christians today.
c) similarly, just because Paul wrote words to a particular church to address a particular issue, does not mean that those words were also for us and apply to us. There is a difference between church practice and non-negotiable Christian doctrine.

 

[Strong in Him]

I would basically repeat what I stated before:

a) history does not base a doctrine
b) common order is not based on historical exceptions

And I would repeat what I said before - if it was never God's will for women to be in positions of leadership and teach and proclaim his word, he would not have called them to do so, EVER.
He would have made it very clear throughout history, and Jesus would have taught, that this was his will and command.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Esther wasn't a disaster. She saved the Jewish race from destruction - Jews still celebrate her today.



I didn't say they are invalid. I'm saying:
a) they are not "clear, explicit doctrines" - since there are examples in Scripture of the very thing that they supposedly forbid.
b) just because are written in Scripture does not mean that they automatically, and logically, apply to us today. Look at the Jewish law; that's in Scripture, with strong warnings about people who disobey it. Do we in the Western, Gentile church uphold it? No. Even Jews don't offer animal sacrifices today and they no longer have a temple. This doesn't mean that the books containing the Jewish law are invalid. They are useful for us in showing God's working and interaction with his people; they instruct us, as the law was a shadow of things to come; they show us how the old covenant failed and why we needed a new one - they just aren't laws that are kept by Christians today.
c) similarly, just because Paul wrote words to a particular church to address a particular issue, does not mean that those words were also for us and apply to us. There is a difference between church practice and non-negotiable Christian doctrine.

Following the logic of statement C; we would need to throw out all of the Epistles; keeping only the 4 gospels, Acts and Revelation.

Cool.

 

[trophy33]

And I would repeat what I said before - if it was never God's will for women to be in positions of leadership and teach and proclaim his word, he would not have called them to do so, EVER.
He would have made it very clear throughout history, and Jesus would have taught, that this was his will and command.

God in your view must be contradicting himself.

He commanded something and then wants us to do the opposite.

 

[trophy33]

Esther wasn't a disaster. She saved the Jewish race from destruction - Jews still celebrate her today.

Esther was not a queen in Israel, she was just a wife of a Persian king. She saved Jews but produced the killing of 75,000 Persians by Jews. So a small genocide.