Women Priests/Pastors

[Archivist]

However, there is much record of male leadership in the Church from the early years; yet nothing regarding female leadership.

Nothing? Nothing at all? Did you forget Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla, Mary?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There have been female Quaker pastors since the 1600s.

As I pointed out earlier; none outside the Orthodox, Catholic and conservative reformation until very recently. Quakers are part of what theologians refer to the radical reformation; the radical reformers chose to defy tradition by shunning it, and adopting un-scriptural approaches in opposition to tradition; and applying various critical interpretation modes to scripture to justify a non traditional and heterodox practice.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

1 Timothy 2:12 is inspired by God.
That doesn't mean that it is a command that is applicable to us today. Where does it say that it is? How do you know that it wasn't inspired by God as a solution to a particular problem that Paul was facing at the time? What gives us the right to assume that it applies to us too and is definitive teaching on the subject?

Were Paul's words in 1 Timothy 5:11-15 about not giving financial help to widows under 60, inspired?
Was he inspired when he called such widows gossips and busybodies? If so, then presumably his words apply to us today - if we follow your logic of applying ALL verses of Scripture to everybody. So any women in your church/community who have lost husbands in war, and been left as single parents, you can tell them that Scripture says they are gossiping busybodies and deserve no financial support from the church.
Was Paul inspired when he taught about treating our slaves well? If so, then presumably Wilberforce sinned when he abolished slavery and we should all have slaves, as they did in Bible times, so that we can follow Biblical teaching about how to treat them?
Was Moses inspired when he gave the law to the Israelites? We know that Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the law, but that law is still in the OT - the compilers of the Bible did not say "it's irrelevant, leave it out." Following your words that "it's either all inspired or not at all", should we be keeping the Jewish law that was never given to us anyway?

1 Timothy 2:12 is inspired by God.
That doesn't mean that it is a command that is applicable to us today. Where does it say that it is? How do you know that it wasn't inspired by God as a solution to a particular problem that Paul was facing at the time? What gives us the right to assume that it applies to us too and is definitive teaching on the subject?

Were Paul's words in 1 Timothy 5:11-15 about not giving financial help to widows under 60, inspired?
Was he inspired when he called such widows gossips and busybodies? If so, then presumably his words apply to us today - if we follow your logic of applying ALL verses of Scripture to everybody. So any women in your church/community who have lost husbands in war, and been left as single parents, you can tell them that Scripture says they are gossiping busybodies and deserve no financial support from the church.
Was Paul inspired when he taught about treating our slaves well? If so, then presumably Wilberforce sinned when he abolished slavery and we should all have slaves, as they did in Bible times, so that we can follow Biblical teaching about how to treat them?
Was Moses inspired when he gave the law to the Israelites? We know that Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the law, but that law is still in the OT - the compilers of the Bible did not say "it's irrelevant, leave it out." Following your words that "it's either all inspired or not at all", should we be keeping the Jewish law that was never given to us anyway?

First off , where did I state that all verses apply to everybody?
Secondly , you are not giving good examples to plead your case.

I 100% stand by what I said .
Either the Word of God is all inspired or not.
There is no option.

And your argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Word of God is all inspired.
Nothing that you mentioned has anything to do with my statement.

This may help you.
Not my words , but the inspired Word of God.

2nd Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof , for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

That verse is quite clear.
ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.

There shouldn't be a problem regarding this whatsoever.

 

[Archivist]

As I pointed out earlier; none outside the Orthodox, Catholic and conservative reformation until very recently. Quakers are part of what theologians refer to the radical reformation; the radical reformers chose to defy tradition by shunning it, and adopting un-scriptural approaches in opposition to tradition; and applying various critical interpretation modes to scripture to justify a non traditional and heterodox practice.

But the Society of Friends didn’t defy scripture because scripture gives us the camels of female leaders.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Nothing? Nothing at all? Did you forget Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla, Mary?

Certainly, they are all commemorated in our calendar; but they are not clergy. Scripture does make it clear regaling the roles of women in the Church; today we call it the Diaconate. In the Catholic Church, Nuns. Likewise simalar offices for men; Deacons, Monks. Not all men are called to serve as Pastor/Bishop either.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But the Society of Friends didn’t defy scripture because scripture gives us the camels of female leaders.

In light of Scripture, this is not the only issue with which the Quakers seem to be at odds with.

 

[Archivist]

Certainly, they are all commemorated in our calendar; but they are not clergy. Scripture does make it clear regaling the roles of women in the Church; today we call it the Diaconate. In the Catholic Church, Nuns. Likewise simalar offices for men; Deacons, Monks. Not all men are called to serve as Pastor/Bishop either.

Except there is no direct correlation between offices in the early church and offices today.

 

[Archivist]

In light of Scripture, this is not the only issue with which the Quakers seem to be at odds with.

And?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And?

Indicative of personal interpretation, rather than using Scripture to interpret Scripture. Scripture does not get it's context from us or today's society; Scripture, being Divinely inspired Word of God, only get's context from God; so only from Scripture.

Even if you disagree with this particular practice, as a Lutheran you should understand that validity and authority of Scripture is why you are a Lutheran; were such not the case, Luther would have had no basis for the 95 thesies. Even in the Liberal synods, historic critical interpretive standards, and the fall out with this issue, other gender and sexuality issues, right to life etc... are recent innovations that took place in the last 100 years; but the seeds were sewn with the crypto-calvinist conspiracy (a result of influence of the radical reformers) some 500 years ago.

There is your "And?"

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But Paul was an Apostle giving the authorized teachings for the church.

Agreed. It is either God's word or it is not God's word. If it is not, this whole discussion, and Christianity is a farce. Those without faith believe that.

 

[Paidiske]

Agreed. It is either God's word or it is not God's word. If it is not, this whole discussion, and Christianity is a farce. Those without faith believe that.

The classic Anglican position is that the Scriptures "contain all things necessary to salvation," but that matters where the interpretation of Scripture is disputed (which are not "proven" by Scripture), ought not to be considered binding.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the ordination of women is adiaphora, but I would go so far as to say it's not a matter which pertains to salvation, and that it is not a matter which is "proven" by Scripture, since the Scriptural record is both sparse and open to multiple intepretations.

The Christianity of those who ordain women is not a farce; and given your openness and generosity in the past, Mark, I'm grieved to see you suggest that.

 

[Strong in Him]

And??

That's what I asked - don't expect an answer though.

 

[Paidiske]

That is a separate issue, and not the subject of this thread.

 

[Archivist]

Agreed. It is either God's word or it is not God's word. If it is not, this whole discussion, and Christianity is a farce. Those without faith believe that.

Peter, the Rock, was an Apostle as was Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet he and Paul disagreed. Does that make Christianity a farce? Of course not.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

And in this case he was obviously giving his opinion.

What???
He most certainly was not giving his opinion, but writing the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!!!
SMH!

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Peter was an Apostle as was Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet he and Paul disagreed.

Provide an example .

 

[Archivist]

Provide an example .

Have you not read scripture? Are you not aware of the incident at Antioch?

 

[OzSpen]

I've always assumed the same for 1 Timothy where it only refers to certain women in the church it's send to. The greek phrase here could further fit in with my own interpretation. Thank you for that.

Ultimately, if Jesus didn't teach on it, it is usually a non-issue except with some rare cases.

JAU,

Shouldn't the Greek phrase of 1 Tim 2:12 be the interpretation of the text, if we are determined to obtain the meaning from the text?

That's what exegesis means. Getting the meaning from the text and not imposing my interpretation on the text.

I have pursued some of these issues in my article, Must women never teach men in the church?

Oz

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Have you not read scripture? Are you not aware of the incident at Antioch?

Stop asking silly questions. I think it is pretty obvious that I read Scripture.
How about answering my question without a question , or at least after the fact.
Let us discuss this incident that you speak of.
Thank you.

 

[Archivist]

Stop asking silly questions. I think it is pretty obvious that I read Scripture.
How about answering my question without a question , or at least after the fact.
Let us discuss this incident that you speak of.
Thank you.

You asked for an example, which would seem to be unnecessary if you read scripture. Surely you would be aware of the disagreement at Antioch without needing to ask me for an example.