ChristiansUnite Forums

Is there any such thing as a Female Pastor? If there is or not can you give concrete biblical support to your position?

       Shaka;
Titus 1
5   For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6   If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7   For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1 Timothy 3
2   A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach
1 Timothy 3
12   Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well
       Bishops, and Deacons if these are "Husbands (male) of one wife(female)" Would not this also be for the higher post of pastor, or leader of a Church.

Yes, but, many will pull out all the passages that talk about women in power or being used of God.  What about those arguments.  But your argument seems airtight!

     Shaka;
     Many of Thoughs used of GOD where of many walks of life both male, and female, even prophits were of both sexs, but even in the old testament preists were restricted to males.

DITTO  ;D

No not if you read the bible there isn't.  Paul clearly gives us the reason and it goes back to genisis for the answer.


1Ti 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

He also gives roles for the women young and elder.


1Ti 5:2
The elder women as mothers; the younger as
sisters, with all purity.
1Ti 5:14
I will therefore that the younger women marry,
bear children, guide the house, give none
occasion to the adversary to speak
reproachfully.

This is a futile argument that I do not like to get in to. But here is my opinion.
There is no such thing as a female pastor. On the other side there is no such thing as a male pastor. For in Christ there is neither male nor female. Another thing, a pastor is not an office to be filled but a function to be lived. A pastor is simply one who takes care of sheep. Taking care of sheep is a function. We think that just because a man can give a 30 minute serman on Sunday that he is a pastor. Sorry, but this does not fit the job description. "Apt to teach" does not require eloquence but spiritual insight. A deacon can be a pastor, so can an elder or bishop. There can be several pastors in one local church.  There is too much religion in Christianity today. Christ verses religion; He is in opposition to it. I know this challenges the thinking of many. "Pastor" should not be a title in front of someones name, this goes against Jesus teaching that we should not call someone Father or Teacher for we are all brethren on the same level. Heirarchy should be rejected outright. If you want to be great, serve. This pleases Jesus. There are only two offices in the local church, elders and deacons. These also are not to be used as titles. These are states of being recognized by the local church. These are functions to be carried out. These are not people who are higher up but are honored by all for their service. There is no anarchy in the Spirit. The reason we set up Heirarchy in the Church is because we are afraid of anarchy. We want a controled environment. We do not want to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ because we want to lord it over others. I know some will disagree but I still love you. You are where you are an I am where I am. The Lord has brought me through some deep waters to arrive on the other side. There is a lot of other little boats that have made the same journey. He who has ears to hear let him hear.

asaph

Whatever ;)

I don't blame you for answering that way cause that's how I answer my self. "Whatever!" I appreciate your response cause it reminds me how off the wall I am; daring and dangerous. I think to say that a woman can never pastor under any circumstance is not right. I think it is a rarity for the Holy Spirit to allow such a thing but it does happen and good fruit has come of it. We can't bind ourselves to mans interpretation of scripture. THis was a problem of the Pharisees, they placed their dogma above the scripture through their by their tradition. Our staements of faith and confessions have replaced the Holy Spirit in many ways.
We know that women can prophesy in the church.

5   But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

You can hardly keep silent and prophesy at the same time. This does not mean she is usurping authority over the man (which in context really means her husband). In a prophecy there is instruction, are we to ignore it just because a woman gives it? Remember pastoring is not an office but a function. In functioning she is to keep the same spirit of humility as any member of the body of Christ.
There is a women in the Bible who was functioning as a pastor.

 2 John 1
1   The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2   For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
10   If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Here was a local church that met in a home whose care was under that of a woman. She was instucted to not allow even men with false doctrines to step into her house. Is'nt that disgusting ;) ? To think a woman in leader ship, over men!!! This is outrageous! That's it I am contacting headquarters  ::)! I'm gonna talk to the head bishop! I going to form a coalition to oust her! I'm mad! >:(

asaph ;)

amen asaph. We are now a priesthood of believers in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. These 3 traditional pairings are in reflection of the social divisions of hostility of this time within the Roman Empire. Paul was affirming the biblical basis for full participation of women in ministries of the church. The biblical theology of  a "new creation in Christ" in which "neither male nor female" of who are equally committd to the Gospel, the Church and all the ministries, using our Spiritual giftedness to lift up the body of believers in the fullness of Christ, without exclusion.

Yes, women can do the work of God. But, I don't think they are priests. Historically, the Church has taught that women are equal to men but simply have a different role to perform. NOW and other groups like to spread propaganda saying the Christians don't allow women to do the work of God, Christians are curbing the rights of women. No more then the Government is curbing the rights of Congressmen. It has nothing to do with rights, it is a think of reasonability.

It is Gods command. See Genesis 3:16. As much as people hate to admit it, God clearly said the man shall rule over the women. Is this politically correct? No, it isn’t. But who ever said the Bible was politically correct? Jesus came and died for our sins, but the snake still crawls on his belly (Gen 3:14), we still have to work for food and we still have thorns and thistles (Gen 3:18-19)! And last I checked, you still have pains during child birth (Gen 3:16). So why are you allowed to take out a part of your punishment, that is, being ruled over by men, while the Males and the Snakes still have to carry out our full punishment! That is just as fair as, I dare say, women not being allowed to be priest, maybe? A women can do the work of God, and she can do mighty work of God, bring millions of Jesus, but by Devine Law set on this Earth by God himself, a women can’t rule over a man! Don’t hate men, hate Eve!

You don’t have to have a place in the Elders counsel of your Church to do the work of God, keep that in mind.

Historically, women have been called by God to leadership. It is also shown within the pages of Scripture. Tradition and culture have been instead the force behind the suffice that women are somehow not "equipped" for leadership due to their "God ordained role".

I do not agree that it is out of propaganda from such organizations as NOW and other secular movements, but instead, from intelligent biblical scholars and Christians who have in their quest, come to the realization that God has gifted both men as well as women for leadership, ministry, and service to bring the Gospel message to others.  There are many many Christians who do not hold your point of view tibby.  The SBC was divided with some states withdrawing from the convention due to their infamous revision to their Baptist Faith and Message in regard to this very issue.  The Willow Creek Church which creates Christian materials used throughout the world hold to women in all levels as called by God.  

In Genesis, God's creation design was male/female equality. Genesis 1:26-27 show man and woman share the same nature the same image of God. Both are commissioned to rule the earth. They share in essence and equality of role. Just as a piece of paper, by its nature has two sides, so humanity, by its created nature has two sexes. Neither the male nor female alone, but the two of them together as "one flesh" constitute and complete what it means generically to be human. "God created man in his own image" creating "male and female" concurrently. Gender differentiation was inherent in God's design for humanity from the onset. That essential partnership of male and female was shattered by the impulse of the two genders to achieve their destiny separately.

Genesis 3:16 were the consequences of sin, not divine ordinances decreed for all time. These are evils which are contrary to the ideal of human nature and to the intention of a good God. The terms of the "sentance" described conditions as they actually existed in the ancient world for both men and women.

They have been called to lead powerful roles, but rarely, if ever, that of heads of church.



Please, don’t tell me about the SBC. The SBC runs this little town I live in, I know about the SBC. You can throw a rock in any direction and hit SBC (I know, I've been tempted to more then once  ;D). Then it will bounce off them and hit a BMA! lol SBC, at least the ones in this little Texan town, base their beliefs more on the “Ma lit’ woman gonna stay in da kitchen an’ cuk for me” philosophy then the biblical philosophy.  



I agree with having couples share office. That is how our church is. All of the married church leaders are together in meetings, Pastor is both man and wife, elders and elders wives are equal in power. When man and women are married. What about the single women? No, not as Pastors. Preachers, evangelists, Prophetess, yes, but as leaders of the church, with men subject to her, no.



If they are not decrees for all time, then why do they all still apply? The Snake STILL crawls in its belly, Men STILL have to work for food, and women STILL have pain during child-birth. It sounds pretty permanent to me. Sounds to me, if the other parts of the punishment are still in effect, why should the part about women being subject to their husbands be ANY different then the rest. And I am not even going to quote the New Testament verses, the rest of the guys pretty much covered them for me. Which is why I didn’t feel inclined to reply till I say your response.

Hey Tibby,

As you've already pointed out, the problem with using Genesis 3 as an argument against women's ordination is that there are two parts to the curse on woman, and so if you say one is still in force, you must also say the other is. Those two parts are:

1. Women must have pain in childbirth
2. Man must rule over woman (and she must desire him)

Now, if we attempt to say that the curse is still in complete force, we end up with two problems: firstly, if woman must desire man then we have a problem with lesbians and with celibates - we basically must say that all celibate females are still committing a sin because it is impossible for them not to desire man and so they lust.

The second problem is with the pain in childbirth. If this must remain in force in the same way as you argue that man's rulership over woman is still in force, then anything which goes against the ordinance of pain is a contradiction of the will of God - a sin.

Just as you argue that for a woman to contravene the curse and accept a leadership role is wrong, so also must it be wrong for a woman to contravene the curse and accept any form of pain relief during labour. For example: a woman has a caesarean birth. She is sinning. She has opted out of the pain during labour because she is unconscious - but would you condemn her? Same goes for epidurals.

When it comes to the curse on woman, you must either say that both parts are still in force, or that they aren't. If you wish to argue against women's ordination, using another verse would be a better idea.

As for women's ordination in general, there are several examples of female leaders of the church in the Bible. In the New testament we have Phoebe the deacon,  Lydia, the "elect lady", Susannah, Mary Magdalene and others. In the Old Testament the most prominent are Deborah, Yael and Ruth. There aren't many - perhaps supporting the view that God only calls women in exceptional circumstances or because they are themselves exceptional people - but they are there.

On a more personal note - I have met many fine female ministers, elders and conveners of the various committes (which make up the presbyters). I have also met many fine men who do those jobs.

In my opinion, the type of sexual organs you have has no bearing on your ability to serve, your calling, your standing or your right to do anything. The sexual organs a person has does not signify that they are greater or lesser than anyone else. All it means is that they have different sexual organs. ::)

-Emma

Sorry broken but your hypothosis is quite inccorect.  Women still have pain in child birth whther they use pain relievers or not it just doesn't hurt as much.  Regardless it's quite obvious that the pain is still there as ordained by God though you may try to cercumvent it.  Also desire towards the main does not mean lustfully or sexually.  Adam and Eve were already married how then would it be a "curse" to love her husband.  Also I suppose you believe then that this curse was dropped quite early on since homosexuality has been around for quite some time.  Maybe you forgot about sodom and gahmorra.  Or maybe even how Paul declares homosexuals as not inheriting the kindom of God.

Also if using scripture is wrong perhaps you should go complain to Paul who uses this very scripture as part of the reason women are not meant to be leaders aka preachers to the church.  

Modern women can continue to ignore blatent scripture and twist and make things up as they please it is no and will always be wrong.

Eloquently put, Saved. Broken, you made some good points, but as Saved pointed out, you have a few holes in your theory. Now saved, my father has been in Anesthesia for over 30 years, he is one of the best in the region, and one of the best in the country at doing Epidurals. And if the Epidural is done well, then the women does feel NO pain DURING childbirth. However, the pain afterward is a different story… No top of that, we have to keep in mind, I said “done WELL” it is very possible for a mistakes, or even to little or to much in the way of drugs, or even lack of skill on the practitioners part, and the women still feels a little pain. Good job, Saved. Other then that, you did a good job. Other then that, Broken, how do you explain the multitude of verses speaking against women preachers?

Tibby, yes women have and will continue to be leaders within the church. There were two spiritual ministries present in the OT-that of priest and prophet.  

Deborah, both prophet and judge over Israel for 40 yrs--that word used for judge is "shaphat"--to govern. God raised up Deborah to govern.  Miriam in Micah 6:4 was called a leader--by God. Huldah was a female prophet and contemporary with Jeremiah, and Zephaniah.

Junias -a woman apostle.  Phoebe, called a "prostatis" which is one who governs (romans 16:2) These are a few of the women God called to leadership.

God called these women despite the great cultural and traditional conditions of the times.

Your claim against the sbc is your opinion, however you missed the point of my message.

I am very interested in your Sciptural basis for this shared ministry power of husband and wife, but not single women....?

Scripture indicates that leadership of the Church is vested in Elders who walk in the anointing of the five fold ministries: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists. These are the "people" gifts to the body of Christ for its equipping. Scripture does not indicate a distinction between men and women in leadership  positions within the church. The distinctive qualifications for leadership are character based, rather than gender based.

the woman does always have pain with childbirth, (or afterwards): the Scripture says "I will greatly increase you pains in childbearing"....with pain you will give birth to children. Some women do not have children at all.  Men do not toil the earth  by the sweat of their brow much of the time. However, this was the reality of life in the ancient world before Christ came begin the restoration process of equality.
Just as no person should be ordained or given responsibilites of ministry within the church because of sex, or for the sake of a "point"; no person, called and gifted by God, should be denied any role of ministry or leadership in the church because of one's sex.

Tibby, the NT verses in accordance with wives to submit to their husbands....wives should submit to their husbands, and husbands to their wives. That is what the verses pose.  Whatever submitting a wife is to do, the husband is to reciprocate as a Christian. It is God who is to be leader of each marriage, each home, each heart.  It isnt about a hierarchy, but about mutuality, love and equality in Christ. It is a matter of unity other rather than authority. The self-giving servanthood that Jesus emulated.

My computer ate this the first time, so I'm having to post again, grrr. And its going to have to be in two parts as it was too long the first time. Tibby, I address your comments in here too :)


As Tibby mentioned, some women really do feel no pain in child birth. If even one woman feels no pain, you have to make a choice between saying that they are sinful for accepting pain relieving medication, or that the curse was removed ("...saved through childbirth..." anyone? ;) )


So, it is sinful to accept such medication? Or its ok to circumvent God's will? Which are you trying to say?


The point of the curse being that woman would have pain in childbirth but God ordained that her desire for him would be such that she would have more children and thus suffer more pain.
How would you define desire towards a sexual partner in a non-sexual way?

 
Not just lesbians are affected - all those who feel no sexual desire for a man - which includes celibates - or who feel no sexual desire for the man they are with are, if the curse is upheld in that way, condemned. Or God is a liar. Take your pick.
I am suggesting that the curse is not quite so literal as you make out. That just as we would not condemn a woman for not experiencing birth pains or for not sexually desiring her husband, we should also not say men are the rulers of women. You must either take all, or none :) You cannot say that the part of the curse which deals with men must still be in effect but the rest can be disregarded.


That really isn't relevant here, but it doesn't actually matter whether or not lesbianism is condemned (which it isn't in the OT), the fact that there are lesbians gives the lie to a literal interpretation of the curse. And you've forgotten the celibates.


Ah yes, that scripture. I'll quote or I'll get lost (I notice you're a KJV-onlyist or prefer that version, so I'll use that):

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This is one of the most problematic passages in the Bible; hard to translate, and hard to interpret. At first glance it tends to give the impression that Adam did not sin (contrary to Genesis) and that women can only be saved if they have children + faith, charity, holiness and sobriety (which is against the idea of salvation by faith, not to mention perverse).

Since you bring it up, it might be useful to go through it in detail - and I will get to pseudo-Paul's use of Genesis.

[CONT]

[CONT]
I have a couple of points here:

1) "I suffer not a woman to teach" contradicts scripture if used in an absolute sense. Even if we assume Paul is here talking of women teaching men in the sense of preaching or of teaching adult men, it still contradicts scripture. According to Acts:

And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. (Acts 18:24-26)

Therefore, if women are not to teach men ever, Priscilla sinned, as she taught Apollos, who was (obviously) a man. Would you say she sinned?

2) "Nor to usurp authority over a man." The King James Version's translation here is actually the best, in my opinion. Paul is being very specific here about what he is condemning, he is not condemning the authority of women over men, but the usurption of authority over men. It may be helpful to define "usurp", as its really not used often anymore:

\U*surp"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Usurped; p. pr. & vb. n. Usurping.] [L. usurpare, usurpatum, to make use of, enjoy, get possession of, usurp; the first part of usurpare is akin to usus use (see Use, n.): cf. F. usurper.] To seize, and hold in possession, by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp the prerogatives of the crown; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him. (Websters, Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=usurp))

The Greek word translated "usurp" is used only once in the entire Bible, and is authenteo. Now, according to Thayer's lexicon, this is defined as:

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself (an earlier definition)
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one
(Source (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1053563790-1423.html))

Now, if a man were to preach on his own authority, we would condemn him. The Bible does not teach that a preacher preaches on his own authority but is granted the authority of God - because he is teaching God's will. Paul makes mention of this several times (2 Corinthians 10:8, 13:10), disciples of Christ are given such authority (Luke 9:1) and, as is in accordance with the Bible's teaching that you must either be for Christ or against him, we are told that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1; Colossians 2:10). When someone preaches, expounds on the Bible, he does not do so on his own authority but by the authority of God (2 Peter 1:10) and when he teaches he does not do so by his own authority either (John 14:26)

Thus, if a woman preaches on her own authority, she disregards God. The same goes for men. We've all seen the people who say "you must believe/do X because I say so", it is to those people that this verse speaks.

Incidentally, should you choose to interpret this verse as saying a woman must not have any authority at all over men, rather than saying she must not act on her own authority nor steal authority from rightful holders, then you condemn a great swathe of people. For example, a woman with servants/slaves, who is a manager in a company, or even a woman who is a moderator on a message board are sinning! You must also condemn certain women in the Bible who are not condemned by the Bible - for example, you have no choice but to condemn Deborah (Judges 4:4) who was not condemned by God. Are you willing to do that?

Verse 15 ("she shall be saved in childbearing") is the most problematic verse here. The only way I see to avoid the perverse and contradictory interpretation I outlined above is to say that this is saying Woman will be saved by a particular child's bearing. Jesus. Because Woman bore the Son of God, she shall be saved - as everyone has that capacity. So why, we should ask ourselves, did Paul mention this especially to women? Why didn't he just say, because of Jesus, all people can be saved? There must be a reason he addressed it specifically to women. Considering that just before this verse, he was talking about Eve, and the curse on Eve ... the birth of Christ broke the curse on Woman. (Recollect what the word "notwithstanding" means) We live with one foot in the world and one in the spirit - the flesh being with us - and so, we are forced to bear the physical curse, because the flesh and the world remain unredeemed until Christ's return, but the spirit..is a different matter. The spirit has already been redeemed - hence you have eternal life now, not just in the future. Christ broke the curses (plural) of Genesis - man is no longer under a sentence of death, his life need not be sorrowful either, and woman is no longer under the rule of man. The physical curses are still there - we're not in the new earth yet - so man still has to toil for food and woman still has pain (sometimes) in childbirth. But the spiritual part of the curse has been broken on the cross.

If I had to paraphrase this passage, I would say that Paul has basically said: Women, shut up, listen and learn. Don't disrupt the preacher, steal his place or use your own authority to preach and teach without leave. Remember that Adam was made first, then Eve, and the serpent attacked and deceived Eve, but not Adam. In spite of that, woman will be saved through the birth of Christ, if they all continue in faith, charity and holiness with sobriety.


You seem to have forgotten the male proponents of women's ministry.
Men, too, can ignore scripture ;)

Now...what about Junia, Phoebe, and the like?

-Emma

3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

Hello?... is anyone home?.... Hello?

It's quite obvious there's no point in continuing this disscusion with you.

Well, I don't know about you, Saved_4Ever, but personally I agree with the KJV's translation here. You'll notice that they did not write simply "to govern", but "usurp authority". They had good reason for this :)
I gave the etymology of authenteo, as well as its primary and other definitions - I can see no reason to disagree with the KJV translators' decision on this.

1 Timothy 2:12; "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.."(NIV)

The meaning of the Greek word translated "to have authority" or "authentein" occurs only here in the NT and was rarely used in the Greek language.  It is not the usual word for positive, active authority, but rather it is instead a negative term which refers to the unsurping or abuse of authority. Thus, the prohibition is against some abusive activity.

To add to what Suzie said, The problem with your argument, Broken, about using KJV, we are using a 21st century definition here. This is a 17th century book written in 17th century English. Now, they say England and America are 2 countries divided by a shared language. Imagine how different British England THEN, and American English now are! Think about this:

If I say “That is tight” I mean that is cool, but in England ,if I say “That is tight” it would mean that is tight wadded, that is mean or cruel.

If I say you are mean, here in America, that make you a cruel person. If I said you where mean in English, it would mean you were not generous.

If I say I need a rubber in America, I mean protection, if say I need a rubber in English, it is an eraser for a pencil! THAT would be embarrassing!

 In America, I ask “What are you doing ON the weekend?” in England, I ask “What a re you don’t AT the weekend?”

If I spilled milk, in America, I’d say “I spilled milk” in England, “I spilt milk”

If I’m in an restaurant in America, and ask for the police, I am being robs for something, but I ask for in in England, I am asking for the Check!

I can go ON and ON, the point it KJV was written in England centuries ago! Using a modern Dictionary isn’t going to do much good.

I know that is a problem with using the KJV :) I was partly using it because I think Saved_4Ever prefers it - judging by the picture in his signature.
The language has changed, but I seriously doubt the word "usurp" has! It still means to take possession of unlawfully!

The reason I said the KJV had the better translation here is because "to usurp authority" has both a very different meaning than "to have authority", and also because it captures the sense of the Greek word better than simply "having".

As Suzie said:


The passage is not just talking about having authority, full stop, but about a specific way of gaining/using it which is unlawful.


Actually, where I come from in England, "tight" means drunk ;)


In many respects, you're right. There are a lot of occasions where the KJV is confusing to an argument due to the meanings of words having changed - and of course the difference between UK and American English. But, certainly in the UK, I don't think the word "usurp" has or had a different meaning to the one I quoted, and I doubt it is different in the US.

Good point.



Really? What part are you from? This reference about Tight came from a Friend I know who lived near the Oxford Area. He lived in Africa for the first part of his life, maybe he got it from there. We both spent a whole weekend together says “tight this “ and “Tight that” lol, when he said “abortion was tight” I had a feeling we where using to different meanings… lol, good times, good times!


Yes, just ask and Shakespearian Actor or Rennie, they will tell you the same thing. Read Beowulf one day, no the original text… Hey, it is English, too, right? lol

Actually Tibby, I was not really in disagreement with Broken at all.....The Greek word authentein was a term that equated to unsurping of authority.....this word has such a negative connotation in the Greek language that it carries the concept of sovereign domination.  Paul was dealing with a woman who was spreading false doctrine.

I know. I wasn't referring to you. This woman was a gossip, plain and simple. What I'm wondering is why Paul though he needed to say she was a women. Many time, he doesn't even bother to menton who the person is, just the sin. But he said women from some reason...

No pot of that, we are focusing one one part of the Verse. What about "teach" the word before "usurp"? A women shall not teach a man. What is he referring to there?

There are a few things to keep in mind when looking at this passage.

1Timothy2:11-12 seems to be a general prohibition on teaching and authority exercised by women. It is not directed to only a certain level of persons : "ordained vs non-ordained", "pastors vs missionaries"; nor is it limited to only a certain style of teaching "preaching vs sharing", "seminary teaching vs writing theological books." In other words, if this were a trans-cultural absolute prohibition on women teaching and exercising authority in the church, then it prohibits all such activity. 1-2 Timothy shows the heretical activity combatted with a deviant approach to sexuality in 1Tim 4:3, 5:11-15; a particular focus on deluding women who were generally uneducated as in 2Tim 3:6-7.

In the first epistle to Timothy, Paul alternated his concern for Timothy and his concern for this church. Paul poured out his concern for the church of Ephesus in 1Tim 2:1-1Tim 4:5.
The overall picture shows us God wants to save everyone. The particular examples are what  God wants to do with men and women. Within the last example, women, Paul begins by talking about women in general, then switched to a particular woman, then switched back to women in general.

Paul did not use aner, the Greek word for men throughout the first seven verses of 1Timothy 2. Instead he used anthropos, the Greek word best translated as "person"  or "human". He continued using anthropos: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the (person) Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all (humans).."

As Paul speaks to women regarding their responsibilities in the church, He began by saying "Likewise, I want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to  worship God."  The NIV begins this verse with "I also," however, it would communicate Paul's intent more clearly if also were translated "likewise" or "in some other way". This word in the Greek is like a literary equal sign. Paul deliberately chose this word to highlight the similarities, not the differences of men's and women's roles in the church. Though the text does not specifically exhort women to pray, it implied by the way Paul chose to begin this sentance. Paul wanted everyone to pray-- both men and women in a godly manner.  Chrysostom was an early church commentator and he understood this and even added the words "to pray" to this verse to complete its meaning.

The church of Ephesus is where Priscilla was a founding leader and she spent much time along with her husband, teaching and correcting Apollos, discipling him for leadership.

I'm from the North of England, Newcastle, near the border with Scotland. It might be a regional thing :) I keep finding that I'll use what I think is a common word (like "tat", "canny", "spelk") and find that it either has a different meaning or is an unknown word elsewhere in the country! (FYI: a tat is a tangle, canny means nice, and a spelk is a splinter). We have more in common, linguistically, with Scotland than with the south of England, so tight might mean something else again down there lol ;D


Yep, it is indeed English :D Old English, as opposed to Middle English (Chaucer), Early Modern English (KJV) and Modern English (what we speak). Actually, do you see the image in my sig? The bottom lot of words, they're in Old English.


Well, given that Paul was obviously fond of and knew well, Prisca/Priscilla, and that she taught a man, I don't see how it can be as absolute as it does look. I'd venture a guess that he was drawing the two things, authority and teaching, into the one condemnation - the issue of taking authority or using the wrong authority to do something. Perhaps Paul was saying don't teach with the wrong authority, as well as don't use your own authority/steal authority over a man?

That'd be my idea, anyway.

Yes. Here in America, we learn each other dialect because we spend so much time making fun of each other. We have Guys like Jeff Foxworthy and Chris Rock to “bridge the gap” for their cultures. The guy I was talking about had all kinds of crazy words. In America, we joke about the British vocabulary, but it is on joke. He called the local lake “dodgy” and I’ve already told you are the “tight” thing. lol, you crazy UKers! So, do you consider yourself English or Scottish? Sorry, the extent of my knowledge of English Geography comes from Stephen R. Lawhead books! Lol



Yeah, Modern English takes so much from the Languages of the local people, it is NOTHING like old English. I forget all the names, but it is like 100s of different English Dialects over the world today! At least 3 for each English speaking Nation.



Well, I didn’t have an answer either. I was just wondering.

Hey Saved, where’d ya go, buddy?

Hey Tibby,


I've had to cure myself a bit of calling things "dodgy" on the net! I once had a discussion with an American poster somewhere and said that such-and-such was a dodgy argument, only to get an indignant reply that he hadn't tried to dodge the issue! Which, of course, wasn't at all what I meant!
The worst thing to find out is when what is a perfectly innocent word where you come from means something incredibly obscene somewhere else - very embarrassing!


English :) Newcastle is about fifty miles from the border with Scotland, in England.


The major difference between Modern English and Old English was the introduction of Latin through French after the Conquest in 1066. Thats why it looks so strange to us whereas we can make sense of Middle English - OE is much more Germanic. Some of the English dialects are almost impossible for outsiders to understand - when I was a little girl, I spoke the local dialect so strongly, with such a thick accent, that my relatives from thirty miles further south couldn't understand what I said! Actually, my own native dialect has been classified as a language in its own right now :) as has Scots, and I think some of the pidgin English ones have too. I understand that there are some people in the US who speak a sort of Germanic-English, which is supposed to be quite hard to understand too?


I think Saved decided he didn't want to continue with this.
Its been interesting though, I just used some of the stuff we've been talking about in an exam :D so if I pass, I'll give the credit to the board lol.

Emma

That wold be correct.  I've gone through this topic a bijillion times and it's tiresome when people come up with different excuses for wh ythe bible doesn't sya what it says or that it means something different.  I even debated this with susie before.  there's nothing wrong with using the KJV as it's not very hard to find out what a word use to mean.  Current american, english in general rather has gone to the pigs.  

Let's take one last glance here.
 
Seems pretty darn straight forward to me and I guess even more so with the inserted deffinition for all those with trouble comprehending the word usurp.  Again Paul even goes so far as to us scripture from Genisis to show why.  It was not directed at any one individual.  Thank the LORD the women in my Church can comprehend the bible by just simply reading it.

Continue to frivolously discuss the topic.

God bless,
Jason

Jason, I am intrigued by your response. That you have "gone through this topic a billion times"  yet you continue to partake in this very subject over and over again that appears to aggitate you if someone holds a different view point than yourself using Scripture as basis for their interpretation also.

If you are knowledgable in regard to the Bible, which I am sure you are, you would then know that the Greek language is not always so easy to translate into another language, as is the case broken and tibby seem to be focusing on.  

The translators can stick to the words that translate directly across to the new language, or may opt to translate the idea into the other language, making the sentance understandable.

The Scriptures we read are not exactly like the original documents. Instead they have been marked into verses, paragraphs, sentances were ended and started--the translators did such things to make the Bible more understandable to the reader they were attempting to reach, while still conveying the essence and meaning of the original documents.

Just as you believe that these verses are "clear" in regard to limiting women from leadership  or maybe even teaching with disregard for other passages that give clear indication that regard women as not only free to assume leadership but called to do so, should at the very least give pause to your stance.  Remember the Pharisees took the letter of the law and disregarded the intention or meaning that it was to convey.  You can do the same with Scipture if you only see the words and do not understand the message that writer was intending for that particular time.

that's because there aren't any.  the best I've seen you do is pull out scriptures that give no clear anything.  You use the same tactics that a RC used to prove infant baptism.  she used the line where it said because the woman believed all the household was saved to mean that "there must have been children".  Talk about adding words where they weren't.  You do the same thing.

God bless,
Jason

He is right, girls. We are talking about a Book written in a Culture when women where property of a mans. Her Father, Husband, Brother, or sometimes even son. And the bible only confirms this. Women can be great minds in the Christian church, and they can do a lot of good, but the bible clearly says they should not lead over men. Sorry, if we could change it, I’m sure most of us would, but we can’t. The bible says what it says, and it is the Word of God.

Saved- That was low. When will you  just let it drop? Grow up.

Saved,
Scriptures have been pointed out to you which clearly show women in leadership positions, where they are not condemned for so doing. How do you reconcile those with your stance?

Judges 4:4-6 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

Would you not say Deborah was a leader over men, with authority over them?

Romans 16:1-2 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant [deacon] of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me

Junia was a woman.....and an apostle. Not a leader?

Really, I fail to see how it is possible to say that women did not have approved authority over men in the Bible, when the Bible quite plainly says they did have such authority.

How do you fit these examples in (there are others) with your stance?

Emma

Debrah was not a preistess though was she?  Many of the "judges" were not "religious" leaders either so that point is moot.


Servant DOES NOT equal deacon and I can't even begin to figure out why you added such nonsense.  I too am a servant of my church yet I hold no official position nor am I a deacon.  This is the garbage I am talking about.  Adding inferences that aren't there.  You have me quite perplexed to understand why you add to things when they are not there.


::sigh:: You really are showing why women shouldn't teach.  This in NO WAY, shape, or form says that Junias was an Apostle.  Talk about ignornace and not being able to understand what is written.  Considering there were only tweleve apostles, I can't fathom how you came up with this nonsense either.  All it says is that Junias is OF NOTE AMONG the apostles not that she was one.  I thought it was pretty basic knowledge that there where only twelve apostles.  I suppose you were taught different or you just decided to make things up.  

So again I tell you there is nothing in scripture showing women being Pastors, ministers or any other such thing in the bible.  Women are not to teach or have authority in the church.  It's pretty simple and basic.  Also you still have yet to explain why Paul gave his reasoning or do you just like to ignore it?

Women have a very important part ordain by God.  It's such a shame they refuse to see it and it's because of a major lack of their position that this country has taken such a dive.

God bless,
Jason

It wasn't low it was a truth that match to the T and was also used by a women.  There is nothing to let drop and as for growing up I'm only grown where one needs to be.  

Take care,
Jason

Lead them all out to pastor.

Saved-

I really dont know where to begin,so I will start with answering your "accusations" one at a time. First of all, you are speaking about Deborah and dismissing her relevance (as well as the other judges God rose up). All the Judges were raised up as deliverers and leaders for God's purpose. Since the song of praise she authored is the fifth chapter of Judges, she was one of the people moved by the Holy Spirit to speak God's Word, the sacred text of the Bible.

Deborah was both judge and prophet. She was the highest leader of Israel.  Is the fact that none of the priests were women any more significant than the fact that all were free Jewish men?  To say that women  cannot fill certain roles in the church is akin to saying that Jewish Christians cannot fill certain roles. These are cultural (sinful) tendancies, not Christian ideals. Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that distinctions between genders are not significant in the body of Christ.

Miriam was also prophetess and called leader by God. God said, "I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam." One-third of the peoples national leadership was female.

What is a prophet? There are at least two roles in the Scriptures: A prophet can mean the same as a preacher-one who speaks on God's behalf concerning the present-or one who foretells the future. Teaching is also involved in prophecy for if you are speak on God's behalf, you will have to teach those who hear you.  

Now for Phoebe--  Paul began by saying he "commended" Phoebe. The Greek word for  commend means "to stand with" In other words, Paul was endorsing Phoebe. This commendation was extremely significant. The Corinthian church was obsessed with status.  Paul rebuked those who "commend themselves" Paul wouldnt seek for himself letters of recommendation so coveted by those who desired spiritual leadership in the church. Paul said that the Corinthian believers should have commended him and didnt. He wanted to make sure this didnt happen to Phoebe.  After endorsing her, Paul used two key words. He called her a "diakonos" Many translations render this Greek word as "servant" which is not incorrect, however it might be better translated as "deacon" or "minister" as is done in other NT passages. Paul used this word 21 times in his letters. The NIV translates it as deacon 3 times (2Cor3:6; Col4:7; 1Tim3:8) as minister 3 times (2Cor3:6; Col4:7; 1Tim4:6) as servant 14 times (Romans 13:4a; 15:8;16:1; 1Cor4:1; 2Cor6:4; 11:15a;15b;23; Ephesians 3:7;6:21; Col1:7;23;25). This is the same word Paul used for his male coworkers. In other words, Paul used the term servant to persons clearly understood to be ministers of the gospel, including himself. No distinction between minister and deacon existed in the NT. Paul went on to modify the noun diakonos by the phrase "of the church".   This would enforce the message she was a minister of the Gospel who served the church in a public way. The Romans were to "receive her" Paul used this word on one other occasion when he praised an esteemed coworker named Epaphroditus. She was to be received "in a way worthy of the saints" Similar to his teaching in 1Timothy 5:17. Paul went on to say Phoebe was a "prostatis" This Greek word takes on the meaning of servant-leader; or one who governs. Emporers, kings, governors, partiarchs, captains and other figures of authority were referred to by this term. This term was used to describe only one person in the NT...Phoebe.

The 12 were apostles, but there were other apostles such as Paul, James the less, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias. The Greek apostle means "to send forth; send out" To merit the title apostle,  one had to have been divinely commissioned to preach. When Paul identifies Junias as "outstanding among the Apostles" this expression includes them  within the apostolic circle.  John Crysostom, a church father and commentator on Pual in the 4th century, understood the refernce to be a woman and an apostle. He states, "To be an apostle is great. But to be outstanding among the apostles--just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was deemed worthy of the title of apostle."

Remember, we are a priesthood of believers, with Jesus as our high priest. We need no human to intercede on our behalf, we, each of us as believers go directly to God. We will each be accountable for what we do and fail to do as God gifts and directs.  We are all gifted as imparted by the Holy Spirit to meet the needs of individuals or groups. These are  wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracle worker, prophecy, discernment, tongues, interpretation.  We also are gifted with ministry gifts, which has to do with the function of the body of Christ. The gifts of ministry or function are ...apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, one who serves, exhorter, giver, leader, mercy, helper, administrator, preacher, giftings. One Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

Yes women and men have great parts that God has given for us. Each of us God has a plan. Unfortunately yours is about power and placement of a hierarchy. Mine is about mutuality and submission to build up the body of Christ.  

Obviously you still don't have a clue and as per usual, with you and others like you.  We are obviously done.  You can twist, contort and add as you please.  You can use the worst bible aside from the NWT to back you up but alas you are wrong.  You concsistantly ignore truth and so like anyone who ignores truth good day.

Take care and God bless,
Jason

I have been attempting to somehow respond to your last posting Jason, however, I dont think comment is needed.   I think you are wise to step away, for it seems to have upset you.

Read what Clarke has to say about this issue.
1Co 14:34 -
Let your women keep silence in the churches - This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים  yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1Co_11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.
But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chap. 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, etc., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God.
But - to be under obedience, as also saith the law - This is a reference to Gen_3:16 : Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.

I tend to agree with Clarke. I think the hardline approach to absolute submission under all circumstances only does harm to the Gospel. It does not line up with the Spirit of Christ.

asaph

If there are men around let them take the initiative.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/qa2.html

The Apostle Paul prohibited women from teaching men or usurping authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). "Let the woman learn is silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." This does not mean that women are not allowed to teach at all. Paul says that older women are to teach younger women (Titus 2:4), and women are also to teach their children (1 Timothy 5:14), just not men. Priscilla, with her husband, Aquila, showed the eloquent Apollos "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-28). As a result, he became a great asset in the ministry. Also, Paul intrusted Phoebe with delivering his epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:1-2). From my own experience, I know that my wife is an excellent Bible study partner. Never-the-less, I see no way that a woman preaching to a congregation of adult men and woman can be anything but a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. From 1 Timothy 3:2, 3:11, and Titus 1:5-6, it is clear that elders and deacons are to be men. It is most unfortunate that many churches choose to simply ignore passages such as these which do not agree with their view of the world.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/qa2.html

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/qa2.html

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/qa2.html

Yet another post of yours that is actually the thoughts of someone else. It is wrong to post copyrighted material and not attribute it. You wouldn't want people to think they are having a conversation with you when they really aren't, would you?

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/qa2.html

Q: Is it alright for women to be preachers?

A: Our Apostle Paul prohibited women from teaching men or usurping authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). "Let the woman learn is silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." This does not mean that women are not allowed to teach at all. Paul says that older women are to teach younger women (Titus 2:4), and women are also to teach their children (1 Timothy 5:14), just not men. Priscilla, with her husband, Aquila, showed the eloquent Apollos "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-28). As a result, he became a great asset in the ministry. Also, Paul intrusted Phoebe with delivering his epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:1-2). From my own experience, I know that my wife is an excellent Bible study partner. Never-the-less, I see no way that a woman preaching to a congregation of adult men and woman can be anything but a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. From 1 Timothy 3:2, 3:11, and Titus 1:5-6, it is clear that elders and deacons are to be men. It is most unfortunate that many churches choose to simply ignore passages such as these which do not agree with their view of the world.

I've yet to see any church which ignores passages of the bible (except, for example, most of the book of Numbers, which I doubt any of us use on a regular basis).  Coming to a different understanding is not the same as ignoring.

If you say so.

 :)

Brother Love :)

I agree Ebia. Those who hold that women should be used as called and gifted as pastor, leader and such come to this realization through biblical insight.

It is just as easy to claim that those who hold to the hierarchial position of male "leadership" over women are holding onto cultural and traditional mindset that progressed as a result of our sinful state.

Both positions however, hold to the authority of Scripture as their source for determining their position of women in ministry.  Only by continuing deeper study of Biblical evidence and weighing the merits of divergent insights can we come to understand the facets of this issue.

It was not that far away that Christians clutching thier Bibles held that slavery was not only to be condoned, but divinely mandated by God.  

I haven't been participating since the beginning, and I do not have the patience to read the whole thing, so I'll ask a question that may have already been asked.

---

Can the two advocates of female pastors (coincidentally females) explain the verse in 1 Timothy so that it works in your favor?

Too bad you dont have patience for there have been some great posts along the way.....

I don't know who clarke is, and that matters little to me, what his opinion is in this matter, might be however I  didn't see anyone answer asaph's scripture, so I would like to interject into this discussion, the scriptures, which according to the Apostle Paul, are a commandment of the Lord, himself;

1 Cor 14
33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36  What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37  If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38  But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Please note; verses 37 and 38, the word man can easily be understood to include women, it does not exclude women, yet verse 34, speaks specifically of women, qualified; by verse 35, that they should "ask their husbands at home" if they desire to learn anything.

Now here is a point I would like to make.  

Over the course of four pages, you who support "woman pastors" certainly have kicked the scriptures around.

And, I direct my question to those of  you, who consider yourselves to be spiritual..who stand for woman pastors..

How do you reconcile your position, with the Lords commandment herein at verse 37.

Women cannot be Pastors in the sense of the word, a leader of a flock, since they are commanded to keep silence in the churches, and 1 Tim 2:12, points out clearly they are not to teach .................men. They are to keep silent in the church.

They may teach other woman, and children, but not men, according to the scriptures given

It matters little how eloquent or knowledgeable in the word she might be, all women are to remain silent in the churches, according the Lord.

Petro

1 Cor 14 The command for women to be silent does not stand alone. Paul had already given this command twice in the same passage. He had told two other groups to be silent who were disrupting service. These commands were given so that the Corinthian worship would reflect the character of godly worship and edify all that was present.

Pauls "be silent" wasnt an absolute injunction

I haven't seen any mention of the following verses (and please accept my apologies if I overlooked them):

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body.

Colossians 3:11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, specifically for marriage (still in Colossians)--
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Proverbs 12:4 A wife of noble character is her husband's crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.

Oh...Please, the passage of chapter 14e, addressess the those who are excersizing their gifts min the church, the command to women is made explicitly to women, it exludes men, and those whom were already told to remain silent, during certain conditions.

Now how is it you can say such a thing?  Please explain, what you mean, and how you arrive at this conclusion, that the command does not stand alone?  

The command is plain and simple, listen to it again;

1 Cor 14
34  [Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Obviously, you also must have an excuse for the passage in 1 Tim 2; being ignored also;

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15  Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

If you claim to know why the Lord gave this commanded this, perhap you can expound this hidden spiritual truth, which you rely on which is not really a command addressed to the womans role in the church.

It is clear that if a woman is to keep silent in the church, she cannot be a pastor, since pastors are not muzzled by a command from the Lord.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 Paul gives his main idea as since God is a God of order, all should participate in Christian worship in an orderly and edifying way. Paul then proceeds to illustrate this principle by giving examples of what orderly worship should look like.  The examples were those who speak in tongues, those who prophesy, and women of the church.

Paul used these particular examples of those who needed to be corrected and brought back to order, edifying participation.

Paul wasnt prohibiting participation, he wanted all to participate, but in an orderly way. The command to the three different groups are the same. Paul used the exact same word in the Greek to each group. This was a deliberate continuity of thought between verses 28, 30, and 34.

Women were causing division and disruption in church and Paul was correcting this. He had already said he wanted all (men and women) to be ready to contribute with "a hymn or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation."  Paul also commanded the people to "speak".  There is no indication that these commands were limited to men. Paul was addressing anyone who spoke to God on behalf of the people by means of tongues or prophecy, in which both men and women participated.

Paul was actually encouraging women to learn. This was a radical break from the culture because women had no formal religious training. Paul was affirming that women should learn by asking their husbands at home, and not creating disruption during worship service. Paul was commanding the husbands to take responsibility to teach their wives. Paul wanted new believers to learn to use their spiritual gifts to build one another up, strengthening the church.
Paul was making chaos taboo.

2Tim 2:2 Paul  told Timothy, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable persons who will also be qualified to teach others.  The Greek word  anthropos or persons.

I have already discussed 1 Timothy in this thread. You can scan back and read up.

Your explanation, lack substance.

You ignore what Paul says, about Jesus the Lord commanding it, You wrest the very words inspired teaching of Paul, to teach something other than what is in the context of both passages.

This makes plain what you want the scriptures to teach others.  Of course you are a woman, who sits under a woman pastor, no doub  in fact it wouldn't surprise me to know you are one.

Are you presently married, or divorced?

Petro

Well, lets see what these verse really say; lets start with verse 27;

1 Cor 14
27  If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28  But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29  Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30  If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31  For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32  And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Paul was speaking of MEN, notice how he begins the end of his teaching of these things at verse 34, "Let your women keep silence in the churches"

You are delusional, suzie, to say nothing of your un derstanding of these passages, it sounds to me you have made up your mind, on what youy think Paul said, I wonder if you weren't taught these things by a woman pastor, - huh?


At the verse you quote, I have shown you Paul is plainly speaking to men, in verse 20 thru 27, he includes women by the use ofg the word brethern, what passage of scripture do you rely on to make the claim  you do, imediately after spekaing to men, on how to, conduct the chuch servive using gifts, He speak sto them about there women, tghis is because the woman is to be in subjection to a man, whether it the husband or the father,  of course in liberal assemblies today women, are their own man, they rule the roost. This is why you believed what you believe.


Yep, he sure was, by asking their husband at home, and be quiet in the church service.

And, later in 1 Timothy 2, after instructing women to learn in silence with all subjection vs 11, he speaks clearly, saying;  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. vs 12 .  And this doens't mean what you claim it means, simply put, it means what it says.


You must be reading another book, to get this out of the scriptures, that woman pastors were OK with Paul.

Your imagination is ghetting the best of you, and driving you to post what the bible does not state Paul said or taught at all.


No argument here, he did say this to Timothy, but it is a stretch to use this verse as a proof text to teach woman, can be pastors, it is silly to even claim this nonsense.


I don't need to go back, I can see, you are off in left field on this one.

I am not a Chiristian of the penetcostal, speaking in  tongues camp, but I have visited these churches, and my impression from  what I saw and heard in these groups services, is that women are disruptive, and I got a little insight as to why they should keep quiet.
It is a shame to have woman, act in such a manner, it speaks loudly of the husbands inability to lead in the things of God, and it is easy to see, why they submit themselves to unbiblical teachings.

They prohecy  "thus saith they Lord", this tells it all, It is easy to  understand why, they are totally ignorant and oblivious of the Lords commandment, they simply just want to do their will, not Gods, let alone subjecting themselves to their husbands.

Thats all I have to say about this nonsense..

Petro

In 1 Cor 14:26 the word adelphos was used in its plural form-- a gender inclusive nature when used in this fashion. Women did pray and prophesy in public worship. It is also clear that women are given spiritual gifts (including speaking in tongues and prophesy) and were encouraged to use them to build up the body of believers.

In 1Cor 14:27 it better translates "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two...."

In corinthian culture, women were not allowed to confront men in public.  Again, Paul is admonishing disruptions within the church, not laying out universal mandates of roles between men and women.

You continue to make accusations and suggestions without any basis about me personally, and women in generality when it doesnt line up to the Bible as Petro believes it to be.

You seem to throw terms and categories out to encapsulate those who are in disagreement, attempting to place them in a derogatory position to elevate your stance. This certainly is not only a poor means to discussion, but says something about the very character of your person.  

If you do not agree with me that is perfectly alright with me, I have invested much time prayer and study into this issue. I have carefully studied divergent views and held them to the light of the Word.

The gifts of ministry including pastorship, leadership, administration are for all members of the body to build up the body of believers. To serve and respond to God's calling.

suzie,

Well thats wonderful to know.

In all of your studies, how did you comne to  the conclusion, that the command to women, or others to keep silence in the church, was not a command from the Lord??


And  ignoring this doesn't just simply make what you believe and teach to be true.

A Pastor, teaches men, a woman pastor would be considered to be teaching men, when doing it in an assembly setting, so in order to get aroiund this your way, you simply have to ignore what is written or wrest the Word of God.

Sorry, Neither makes it of God.

Petro

Paul's command was "to those who speak in tongues"--"be silent".
"To the prophets"--"be silent"

"To the women"--"be silent"

It would be dishonest to single out the command to the women and make it an absolute without making the others absolute as well.  It seems that some want to pluck out the third and not see the other two.

In the same passage he writes that we are to be eager to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues. The ministry of gifts were not to be silenced but orderly.

The same is true for women. Paul was not seeking to refrain women from public ministry, but place order within the public worship.

The command wasnt pointed just to the women, but to the entire order of conduct and is seen in light of what Paul was saying to this church. The principles continue to be held in worship--there needs to be order within the body to bring glory and edification.  It isnt about roles but conduct....

 ???  ::sigh::

I could almost understand the resistance if it was just 1Corinthians  :-\ but the same thing is said in many places in Scripture so I just can't imagine that it was a mistake~

Gee, I feel like I'm spamming here but I'm going to cut and paste my previous post:

"I haven't seen any mention of the following verses (and please accept my apologies if I overlooked them):

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body.

Colossians 3:11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, specifically for marriage (still in Colossians, just a few verses later)--
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Proverbs 12:4 A wife of noble character is her husband's crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones."

sincereheart many verses of scripture pertaining to this issue have been said before.  Maybe not on this thread but previously before the hack I had a thread about it and suzie ignored my hard scripture.  I only hold my beliefs because of the bible.  Before I was saved I could care less what women wanted to do really and I would have been content to be a "stay at home dad".  

I fully honor and appreciate the crucial role of women in the home and all these views are because of the bible.  Women have an equally important job in the home.  It's just a shame so many women think it's "not for them" or "pointless" and a waste of their "abilities".  I wish more people realized how important the role of the woman is.

It's just a shame so many women think it's "not for them" or "pointless" and a waste of their "abilities".  

And the funniest thing to me is that working outside the home is MUCH easier!  ;)

Though the Bible does preclude women from being pastors, it does NOT preclude them from sharing their testimony or being an influence. Women do still have a role so what's the fuss about?  :-\

Because some (liberal) women don't just want a role.  They want authority!

sincereheart,

Agreed, the verses you have posted, are, as you say but a few of many, which are given by inspiration, for wifves and mothers, even, widows.

Consider 1 Tim 5
5:1  Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
2  The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
3  Honour widows that are widows indeed.
4  But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
5  Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
6  But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
7  And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
8  But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
9  Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
10  Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
11  But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
12  Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
13  And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
14  I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
15  For some are already turned aside after Satan.
16  If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.


An Pastor is not just someone who receives this title, by being appointed by men, a Pastor is firstly an Elder and Elders have always been men, neither Peter nor Paul appointed women Elders, Elders have qualifications which they meet according to scriptures  notice;

1 Tim 5
17  Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18  For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.


Titus 1
5  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6  If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7  For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8  But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;


No woman bishps either.........


14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15  Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
16  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
2:1  But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
2  That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
3  The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5  To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


Women pastors deceive and are deceived easily, with this present day idea, of the qualifications of the pastorate.

There is nothing wrong with have aspirations, but not above or outside the commandments of the Lord.

The only way, women, maybe pastors today, is if they trample and distort the true meaning of the Word of God, and this is easier for them to do, than it is to change what is written for their own good.

And one can see simply, that, that is what is going on here, what makes it sinfull, is this willing desire to disobey Gods Word.


Petro

I'm going to have to agree with 5020 on this.  I can't think of anything else really.

Ok, after re-reading Proverbs 31 all I can think is - when would a woman have time to be a pastor?  :P

Epilogue: The Wife of Noble Character
10 [3] A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 "Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all."
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Paul also, stated;  "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

What is the principle taught herein?

It doesn't exclude women, doers it?  It could very well be directed to certain women, moreso than men..

Petro

I am not sure how Proverbs 31 supports women not to be in ministry.....

 I am not sure what point you are attempting to make here petro in accordance to 1Cor14:38

I am not sure also in regard to women working at home being easier has to do with anything either. Serving the Lord as called isnt about what is easier or harder, but obedience. You also allude to the issue that there shouldnt be any "fuss" since women, in your opinion can share testimony and have influence....(sharing testimony would be in contradiction of 1Cor 14 by the way. If you are taking that as a mandate, then silence is silence).  The "fuss" is about being used as called by the Lord, and that people are not given mandate of authority simply because of gender. It is always a matter of character and of the heart.

Actually Phoebe was considered a minister of the Gospel as well as other women who worked with Paul.

Phoebe was considered a deacon, nothing else.

Sincereheart, well done on your Pr. 31 post.

You are correct that Phoebe was a deacon. There was no distinction  between minister and deacon existing in the New Testament.

A deacon, is not considered the same as an elder. A deacon is simply a servant, helper, one who ministers to others, in Acts 6:1-6, we have a perfect picture of how deacons are chosen, or appointed by the elders, or assembly.

He is not necessarily a teacher, bujt an Elder must be a teacher "apt to teach"(
1 Tim 3:2)

Our sister Phebe, of Rom 16:1, is simply refferred to as "servant", the NIV, transliterates the greek word "diakonon" of the assembly.

Serving and ministering is not limiting to teaching.

We need not think of her as belonging to some special religious order. Any sister who serves in connection with a local assembly can be refferred to as a "deaconess."

It is a stretch to claim she was an "Elder" or a "Pastor".

And elder was called upon to rule and teach.  While the office of deacon, is one which is to be used to be proved and  by his faithfull servive be found blameless.

Note carefully, again;

1 Tim 3
3:1  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8  Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9  Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10  And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11  Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13  For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

A deacon, "be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" vs 12


She (Phoebe) used her money to help and serve and minister to the needy in the assembly, and no doubt this is the reason why Paul wrote of her, reffering to her gift of helps.
suzie,

Conversing with you reminds me of fishing in the early hours of the day, when fish are hungary, they will eat anything that is cast in there direction, this is why they are snagged with lures (fantasies of the real thing), they display a feeding frenzy, swallowing hook, line and sinker, before realizing their error; such is your desire to make the word of God, teach what it does not, you want it to say what it does not msay at all ,so bad, that you can taste it, it is at this point that you have become the most vulnerable, and have embraced what is not of the teaching of God.

In your twisted mind you have Paul agreeing with you, while denying he spoke for Jesus, when he commanded these things.

The next thing that you will claim, is that it is a ploy of the far right to keep woman from become pastor's.

You need to submit yourself to the word of God. But before this can occur you need to forsake your sin of unbelief, and ask for wisdom and understanding, that you might understand it, first.



The word deacon, as used herein is simply the word "servant".
Nevertheless, a Deacon is not necessarily an Elder, but an Elder would have been a Deacon.

A deacon is not a Pastor, this is understood by all.

Petro

I am not sure how Proverbs 31 supports women not to be in ministry.....
My response was: "when would a woman have time to be a pastor?" followed by this:  :P which would indicate humor...

I am not sure also in regard to women working at home being easier has to do with anything either.
It was in response to the statement:"Women have an equally important job in the home.  It's just a shame so many women think it's "not for them" or "pointless" and a waste of their "abilities". And I said: "And the funniest thing to me is that working outside the home is MUCH easier!"
 
 Serving the Lord as called isnt about what is easier or harder, but obedience.
I agree. Which is why I find obedience to Scripture to be important.  ;)

 You also allude to the issue that there shouldnt be any "fuss" since women, in your opinion can share testimony and have influence....(sharing testimony would be in contradiction of 1Cor 14 by the way. If you are taking that as a mandate, then silence is silence).
Actually, "women should remain silent in the churches."
That does not preclude them from witnessing to friends, family, and other unsaved that they come into contact with. Hence, my comment "Though the Bible does preclude women from being pastors, it does NOT preclude them from sharing their testimony or being an influence."

The "fuss" is about being used as called by the Lord, and that people are not given mandate of authority simply because of gender. It is always a matter of character and of the heart.
No, it is a matter of following the Word of God!

But I do it find it odd that you want to try to pick apart those posts and yet ignored the two posts on Scripture. Hmmmmm......  ::)

Obviously women do have a role, it's just not as pastors.

No sincere, I havent shunned away from Scripture. If you read over my prior posts, I have used Scriptural support for my position.

Petro-

Paul called Phoebe a diakonos. You agree this renders to minister or deacon.  There was no feminine form of diakonos in the NT or any church literature until about 300 yrs later. Both men and women were called deacons.

While servant is not an incorrect translation of the word diakonos, it might be better to translate it as "deacon" or "minister," as it is done in the other NT passages.

We have come to define deacon as something different than full-time minister. A deacon is a layperson serving on a board with others, helping the pastor run the business of the church. However, no such distinction applied in the NT.

Paul regularly used this term to refer to persons he clearly understood to be ministers of the Gospel: Christ, Apollos, Epaphras, Timothy, Tychicus, as well as himself.

Paul goes on to refer to Phoebe as a prostatis. This Greek word appears only this one time in the NT. Most translators render this word as "helper", however, that does not give it the full meaning it held in the Greek language.  In fact, we have no equivalent word in our language that is strong enough to give it true meaning. In other ancient literature, this word was used for Emperors, kings, governors, nobles, patriarchs, captains, and other authoritive officials.  Only one person was so described in the NT and that was Phoebe.

Hi there!!

I not really new here though I hardly contribute........ I think I am defined as a lurker.

Anyway this is one subject which very close to my heart, and I encourage all of you to go the following website:

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/may.html

The articles (Priscilla Papers) and other information on this websites  which clearly states the correct transalations of these problem passages.

God Bless!!!

suzie

This is where you make your left turn, to go, teaching what you want to teach concerning Phoebe, to justify yourself, unfortunately fore you, scripture does not support your assumptions.
The word "diakonos" can be translated deacon, minister  or  servant, and in this case is translated servant, since "minister nor teacher is NOT the word that is in view herein for our sister Phoebe.
Since when one puts together the verses which you ignore, she being a woman, could never teach men, which a minister does do. Since it was commanded by the Lord for a woman not to usurp authority over a man (1 Tim 2;12), but to be in silence.
Now you want to teach us, because Paul speaks highly of  Phoebe, you take it to mean she taught him, (this is why it is imperative the word "minister" be used according to you,  the fact is Paul himself says she  was a great help to him, no doubt in meeting his financial and physical needs.
And this is more in line with the word "diakonia" which is the greek word describing the attending ministry of ministers, in performing the service of the church, she provided aid, asistance and relief, which was the duty tended to, by the first deacons mentioned in Acts 6, which I brought to your attention.
It is false to teach that deacons ran the affairs of the church, they did assist the Pastor, this is a pipe dream, the ruling and overseeing of the church was given to the elders, and a Pastor or Bishop was an elder, and he was appointed to the office by them, they (the elders) sat in attendance to judge the matter brought before the church at the   1st Council at Jerusalm, there is no mention of deacons deciding nor even assembling themselves to consider the matter.
You need to read all of Acts 6 carefully, before jumping to conclusions.
The next word you raise proves this point clearly.
By the use of the word "we", you mean, those of you who are compelled to change the teaching of scripture and the ignoring of the Lords command to suit your on agenda and purposes.
The difference is these you name are men, not women, quite a difference.

This word in its context, proves Phoebe was a servant ministering to the physical needs, since it is clear she was not a teacher, teaching Paul.
Note, your attention is invited to the entire verse, which contains the english word "succour" or in the greek "prostatis";
Rom 16
That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

What did she teach Paul about scripture??  Clearly he is reffering to his physical needs, being met, by the sister.

Notice the word used to define the service of ministers (of which, one could be teaching the word), but not in Phoebes case, she was prohibited by the Word of God to teach men, however not of ministering and tending to their physical financial needs.
2 Cor 8
8:1  Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
2  How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
3  For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
4  Praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering (diakonia) to the saints.
5  And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.[/.b]

The word "diakonia" is a word which describes the service provided by "diakonos" and it ir rooted in the same word #1249.

I told you already, your imagination is decieving you greatly, you assume that your conclusions are logical, and therefore true; .............sadly I must inform you,...........  

They are not, you can wish it, all you want, but unfortunately, you are a deceived person, trying to deceive others.

Petro

Correcting what I said before about the office a deacon.

Let re-etirate, a deacon ..........is not a pastor, clearly this is where you wonder off the straight and narrow path.

True, they minister to the needs of the assembly, instructing them in the way they should go, is part of the ministry, but to claim this makes them pastors, in the sense of the word as used today, is not being honest.

Elders govern or rule, Bishops are appointed by elders (1 Tim 5:17), they were ordained  or appointed by Apostles in every city, (Titus 1:5), they must be apt to teach (1 Tim 3:2); this is not say that Paul in his letter to Timothy, excludes all other soldioers of Christ from being teachers, all Christians should be able to teach the good word of God to the unlearned.

Which reminds me, Timothy was admonished by Paul;

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

This is what we have been kicking around,  your mfoolish and unlearned points of view, it is plain you do not wish to accept scripture as written, so you have to re write it to suit your needs.

I say carry on..


OPetro
I leave you now, to your own desires

Petro-

I have not wandered anywhere. The word diakonos is used 21 times in Paul's letters. It is translated as deacon 3 times, minister 3 times, servant 14 times and as promote once.

Paul referred to 14 individuals with the term diakonos or one of its cognate words. Achaicus, Apollos, Archippus, Epaphras, Fortunatus, Mark, Onesimus, Onesphorus, Philemon, Timothy, Titus, And Tychicus. The 13th person is Stephana/Stephanas in which whose name could be man or woman.

suzie,

Actually it depends which version of scripture you embrace, which either supports or rejects the facts you appear to present herein; either way as I said before your info, doesn't support women being pastors, so what is your point, the men whom you refer to, were deacons and some did teach, it doesn't mean all taught, and for sure they were not Pastors.

Deacon only appears five times in the KJV,  the greek word translated deacon appers over thirty times. It usually translated servant for a reason, since in the context it describes Christians meeting  the material of fellow Christians.

Your use of the NIV and the descriptiuon of Phoebe as a deaconess, inspires your active imagination, about promoting her to an Elder, Bishop, Pastor status, but unfortunately;

I got to tell you, you are al ong way, from being able to justify your teachings.

It is interesting you only refer to the NIV translation of the words deaconess, and then abandon the description of her service, by claiming the word succour means something other than what it was translated as, notice at verse 2.

KJV translates "succour" as helper..., even helping Paul.
NIV translates and uses the very words "great help"...
RSV translates the same word "helper" of many...
NEB use the words "good friend" to many....

While it is not incorrect, to say, one who helps or meets the needs of others in the church as a service to the church, is executing a ministry, it is not quite accurate to state, that because one ministers in such a way, this makes them a pastor, teacher, evangelist, prophet or apostle and therefore automatically makeing them something they are not.

The duty and aspiration of every Christian is and should be to edify the body of Christ, within the context and bounds of the teaching of Gods Word.

Women are bound to submit themselves first into subjection to their own husbands, and not to teach men, nor usurp authority over men.

Any woman who espouses what you espouse, obviously has not learned obedience, and rejects the teaching of the Word, not to mention they offend the commands of the  Lord, and reveal that, thou, they may consider themselves spiritual, they are far from it.

Desiring to be a teacher of men, they have need of being taught.

The word Pastor is defined in scripture an is synonymous with the word Shepherd (most specifically they [pastors] are given as a gift to the church by Christ) (Eph4:11-12) as one who feeds, leeds, and oversees the church of Christ.

Nothing you have given or presented herein, teaches nor justifies, the position you propose,

Women are not supported to be Pastors, by scripture.

Period..

Petro

Phoebe was a minister of the Gospel  who served the church in a public way. In the same manner as Paul in Col 1:25 "Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,"


Phoebe was also called a prostatis, translated in the NRSV as benefactor.  The word comes from the verb proistemi:to stand in front; Someone who stands in front of a group of people may be facing them, and therefore speaking to them;giving leadership and instruction. You can see where the translation benefactor comes from.  But prostatis goes further for it could also be translated champion,leader, or ruler.  It is the same verb which describes the activities of elders who rule well in 1 Timothy 5:17, elders who labor in preaching and teaching.

suzie,

You do greatly error not knowing the scriptures, it is myour way to cherry pick verses, and then quote them out of context.

The Apostle Paul was an Apostle called out by Jesus himself, Phoebe was not an apostle, as I pointed out, He is a gift to the church as and Apostle, teacher minister of the Gosple
which was entrusted to HIM, by the Lord Himself.

There is no record Phoebe was ever an apostle, nor a pastor.

And your presupposition that she ever was, isn't not taught in the two verses you have quoted, she was faithful and did, serve as a helper to many including the Apostle Paul, that is all that can be said about her.


Helper, benefactor is the same word, at least you are admitting she was a helper to them in need.  Itm is a far cry from what you were insisting in the begining.  There is a difference between helper and teacher, or pastor. For a moment I thought you incapable of distinguishing between the difference.


It matters little where the word comes from, it is not "stand in front of" it is "helper", as I stated already.


You really should pinch yourself to awaken yourself, you are dreaming.

Your last partagraph is the result of your tangent, that the word "helper" came from a certain root, and then by using your own logic, somehow conclude, that Phoebe preached and taught Paul.

Let's see, now, you would prefer the word to read as follows at;

Rom 16
2  That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a 4291 "proistemi" lit. to rule over of many, and of myself also.

Now you have Phoebe ruling over Paul... Hahh..

Sadly, this is not the word used therein and to use it would be to change the Word of God, which is what you have wanted to do from the begining.

You do, take the cake, now I know you are a heretic, and would prevert Gods word for your benefit.

Taking a word from one of the newer versions here and there, one could re write all of scripture, and this is apparently your aim.

Carry on by yourself.

Petro

Petro-

I will once again ask that if you wish to dialogue on this issue, then I will continue, but if you are unable to refrain from making your sarcastic and pointedly diminishing remarks in another person's view to somehow uplift your own, then I will not participate with you.  Again, it not only diminishes the discussion, but truly says something about your own character as a christian and a person.Somehow you think that by name calling and remarks you can gain credibility.  While you may think this is acceptable, I do not. I can also use your very same argument toward your view.

Others were not indicated outright as apostles, such as Timothy, but was clearly a minister of the gospel and leader, as Paul states Phoebe was as well.

Phoebe was given the title prostatis, which is the only person described as this within the NT. You are diminishing the significance of this word.  This is no far cry from what I stated before, and my post does not indicate any variance from my others. You are reading into something that just isnt there. You may want to reread my post.  Actually, Servant/leader comes closer than helper because it describes a leader who champions for the cause of others. This is the connotation of this word, prostatis. Paul was giving her great honor.

Great..


suzie,

You are a heretic, because you teach heresy..

A heretic by definition as it pertains to theology, is a person; who teaches doctrine contrary to the fiundamental teachings of the church.  You would claim to belong to the church begun by Jesus, and entrusted to the Apostles and disciples.

You have been attempting to teach to this point, that Paul did not really mean what he wrote, about women, not to teach men, nor usurp authority over men, and that Paul lied when he said the things he had expounded on where a command of the Lord, not only making Paul out to be a liar, but contradicting the inspired Word of God, and rejecting the Lords Command (No doubt as I stated before you consider yourself to be spiritual)

And, now you, want us to believe the Phoebe a servant at a certain church, was a teacher, pastor, who ruled over Paul and many others.

How you get all this out of 1 verses of scripture to support your schism, just shows the lengths you are willing to go to prove you are right about such a theory, that a woman can be a pastor.

You have been admonished more than once about this schism of your, as not being supported by the Word, it is time to cut off the debate, you have gone to great lengths to wrest the written word, and deny, what is written is true.

Only by decietfully handling the Word of God, can you prove your theory, and you have proven that you are not able to handle the word accurately, but stumble at it.

Many have given you sound advice along the way of this thread, yet, you continue as a nagging child, to argue a point which is not provable, insisting you are right it this matter.

You think you can prove it, because by changing word meanings, an jumping to  conclusions, it is plausible.

I do not find it usefull to continue discussing this matter with with you, since you not only ignore scripture, but you twist it to your own  damnation.

This is probaly one reason why the Lord found it fit, to comand women to be silent in the church nor to teach men, to begin with..

 
There certain qualifications which make Apostles, Apostles, you need to consider these before making further statementys on htis matter.

As for your quote above, You have made this point over and over several times;  My response to this is still the same.

Phoebe a servant at the church at Cenchrea, was nothing more than a helper, ministering, to many;  the word "prostatis" can hardly be considered a title, you only say it is , in order to claim a special status above and beyond others to her, unfortunately, this theory holds no water, since all translations translate the word "helper", I wouldn't put alot of stock in the Newer vernacular versions of scripture, you  love them and do, but it doesn't change the meaning of the word, one iota.

Next thing you will teach us Phoebe, was the  pastor of the church Cenchrea.

Dream on...

Petro

 

Petro-

Guess you just cant help yourself can you. You believe you can just label me as a heretic and that will make it right somehow.

As I have partaken of this study regarding women, I have at read from divergent viewpoints and interpretations of Scripture. I am sure you would label many of these "heretics" as well, because even of those who believe in the "traditional, or hierarchial" view, have variations of what exact role women "can play" within the context of church ministry.  

Even though you seem to think that those who support the egaltarian view of women in Scripture are "heretics", instead I have found they are learned scholars, Christian men and women who have spent great time and prayerful discernment in earnestly attempting to bring the most truthful meaning to these verses.

Culture and tradition can be deeply rooted and color our perception of Scripture. Often assumptions are made about these topics that are informed more from our society or traditions than by the Bible and the Gospel. We have witnessed this in the verses that were held up in regard to slavery as being a blessing both to master and slave. They earnestly believed that although negroes were created in the image of God, had souls, and could accept salvation, they were convinced the Bible divinely sanctioned slavery. They had verse and text to prove it. After much bloodshed and many, many years, we have come to the conclusion that those Christians who came before us, were on the wrong side of biblical interpretation.  However, those bible verses are still there that "promote" slavery. They were clearly seen by those who taught slavery as morally acceptable.

This produces dilemma. The Scriptures either approve of slavery and it isnt immoral to own slaves, or those verses that were interpretated as such are not to be taken as universal mandates and eternally binding.

This was to point to the fact that there can be believers who hold the Word as Truth, and can interpret passages differently. We see it all the time within these type of forums and even within our own Christian friends. The disagreement is in regard to application of hermeneutical principles, not inerrancy of the Word. However, I am sure you will not be in agreement with this either, since you seem to hold the "real truth" which is your interpretation of the Word and only that.

I believe Paul meant every word he wrote about women. I have held to Scripture for support of everything I have stated. This is not the only verse that supports women in ministry Petro. This is just one passage that we were focusing on.

You said:
"This is probaly one reason why the Lord found it fit, to comand women to be silent in the church nor to teach men, to begin with.." I think this gives insight into your mentality.

The diversity of gifts within the Church recognizes that the Spirit of God functions in different ways in different people. A person's task in the ministry of the Church is determined by the way the Spirit is manifested in that person's life and actions as in 1 Corinthians 12:11. Whether a woman or a man is given the privilege of serving the Church as a pastor, it is not based on that person's choice to do so, but on the recognition that the Spirit of God has led and empowered that person for pastoral ministry. The requirement for pastoral ministry is manifestation of the Spirit and not about being a male. Nowhere in the New Testament are the gifts of the Spirit determined by gender.

A heretic is a heretic, why, act as thou, we should politely agree with your teaching, and continue giving you the impression you are correct, the fact is you are not correct, and there is nothing more you can say, which will make it so.


No doubt what you say may be true, however, the  same logic
you use to come to your conclusion is the one used to ascertain practicing homosexuals can be ordained pastors, or bishops.

If I was a gambling person, I would bet money you don't see anything wrong with practicing himosexuals being ordanied as pastors of Christians churches..

And your problem is exactly as you defined it, studying divergent viewpoints and interpretations (deviating, disagreeable, points that separate, will always lead to false conclusions.  You really should consider studying the truth of the Word of God. And changing the mean of the Words of God, will never bring to the true lite of the matter.

The label of heretic is one which describes perfectly those that twist the good Word of God, while claiming to be believers in it.  Lip service is all it is.

Jesus loves sinners, especially those who have been redeemed, and have put away such evil and vial thoughts, and behavior, recognizing that their sins were paid once and for all, and out of gratitude obey his commandments.

Obedience is more important than sacrifice to our Lord; "for the sin of disobedience (rebellion) is as the sin of witchcraft and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."  (1 Sam 15:23)


I can assure you, they have not consulted God, to see, if He commanded such a thing, they are really, of the new enlightened age, liberals, who trample Gods word, and disregard the command, thinking themselves to wiser than the Apostle who spoke the Words of the Lord to those who con sider themselves to be spiritual.


Don't muddy the water more than is needed,  you are already unable to see the dilema you are experiencing, one of ignoring the scriptures.  Jesus commanded the Apostle to write the inspired words which you and others reject outright.  You even have yourself convienced Paul was just blowing smoke, and that Jesus, never said the words written in verse at;

Note;

1 Cor 14
37  If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

If you are a woman and desire to prophecy, according to verse 34, you are not to do it in the church.

To prophecy is to give out the word of God. There is nothing to preclude a woman from prohecying outside the church, but the command is to remain silent in the church.

You say, this is not true, you  claim Paul did not really teach this at all, you say, woman have a right and should teach men,  can and should prophecy in the church, as a pastor.

This is false.



You are confused.

Your holding, to what is not right, as the truth,  and opposing the very commands of Jesus, is "willfull disobedience" which is unrighteousness,  and this position makes you unrighteous, and comdemnation is assured to all those who hold to the truth in unrighteousness


No, you don't, you only agree with Paul so long as he agrees with you.  And in order to justify this you pick and choose the words, which have been translated to suit you. You even translate and intechange the meaning of words, as thou they are all they same, and somehow your doing it, makes it right.


In order to clarify this quote, I have to state that I have
not disagreed with this point at all, from the begining; what I have taken you to task about is,your insistence the women can and should be Pastors. So don't squirm around limiting your point to women and ministries, scripture is clear, Phoebe and others were helpers and ministered, no doubt excersizing their gift of helps.  There is absolutely no evidence they were Pastors, nor did they teach men.
As women Pastors today do.


1 Cor 12
11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


The verse you quoted, doesn't prove anything towards women being raised up as a Pastor, in fact in its context the gifts distributed by the Spirit in this passage are listed in verses 8thru 10, and if it please the same spirit that women be silent in the churches, then is it for the same reason that everyone profit from this thing.


The manisfestion of the Spirit is given to profit withal (1 Cor 12:7), He (speaking of Jesus) is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4:10-12)

It is here you will find those whom Jesus gives as gifted men to the church, to hold the offices He has given them (note the apsotles and prophets were always men, for those who have been taught by Him as the truth is in Him, these teachings are not somehting which are taken lightly.  The Apostles ordained men as Elders (Titus 1:5) chosen men by the church as  deacons, and were appointed by the Apostles (Acts 6:1-6)  All were men, evangelists, pastors and teachers are chosen by Jesus in the spirit, there is nothing that says a woman, cannot be either, but the fact that they are commanded to be silent in the congregation, excludes them from the Pastorate since it is clear a pastor leads and teaches men in the church.

Women are commanded to be silent.

And I can see plainly your mentality, and the problem you have with being in subjection to the Word of God, any woman,
who argues with men, does so because they are
trying to convince men, to bite the apple, they have already eaten of.

Thanks but no thanks...............

You are trying to convince the wrong person, you really should take this conversation up with the Lord.

Petro
 

Petro-

Name calling and dismissing other believers who do not share in your views, and making false assumptions about them. Unfortunately, your insistance to use these tactics makes any type of discussion almost impossible, but then, that is one way to dominate--I would wonder what would motivate someone to do this?

It still remains that God did, has and will rise up women leaders, teachers and those called to ministry despite culture and tradition. God gives gifts in ministry in accordance to His Spirit for the building up of the body of believers regardless of gender. Whether you want to believe this or not does not change that.

When you have gained self control and wish to discuss the Scriptures and issue themselves, I will gladly accept to do so.

BTW-Geetam, I have visited this website a few times. I think it is great and thanks for posting it for others.

Whatever...suzie,


I believe what you have stated, and have no problem with what you say, as long as you remember he does not raise up women to be Pastors, liberal women, MAKE  themselves pastors, and those who care less what the Lords commands are, approve and ordain woman, and all other sorts of persons to be Pastors.


Actually  I haven't lost anything, I refered to you as a heretic while in control of all my faculties.

By the way, I did want to coment on your statement;


What makes these view points you have studied, "divergent", is not, that they disagree with men, nor culture of the times or whatever else you presume; what makes them divergent and heretical is that threy disagree with the Apostle, and Jesus himself.  You need to think about this.

Instead of studying error you should spend good time, studying the Word of God.

The teaching that women, cannot be teachers of men nor over rule over men, was a fundamental teaching in the early
church for centuries, from the begining, it is only in the 20th century with the liberalization of the woman, and the  re translating of the Word of God into the vernacular english by translators unfit for the  task, that this idea was hatched.

I encourage you to seek God on this matter, and not listen to them that have hatched their own preconcieved notions about what they think Paul said or didn't say, He tells us that "those who consider themselves to be spiritual should consider what he has spoken of with regard to order and o bedience, to be a commend of the Lord Jesus.

Jesus, exhorts all of His people as follows;

Take heed that no man deceive you.

Anyone who says Jesus did not command what Paul claims He commanded, is decieved already.

Blessings,
Petro

"Whatever...suzie,"...Yes, indeed Petro.

Maybe there will be a day we can come together and discuss this in a manner that would be God honoring. However, this is not the day. Blessings to you also Petro.

It is not a matter of calling or even understanding or ability.  It is a matter of order, the order that God set and expects to be upheld.  Women are gifted to understand, even teach God's word, and are inclined to do so - within the parameters that God set up.  In church leadership, it is the man who is set as pastor.  Why?

In many ways it is a picture of the very Godhead.  God the Father is the head, God the Son is subordinate to God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit is subordinate to both.  Yet, God the Son is no less God than the Father, nor the Spirit than the Father or the Son.  It is the order God set.  In the family, the husband is the head.  Not the superior, nor the better, just the responsible party.  In the church the pastor is the head, and that pastorate is given to a man.  Not a superior or better believer, but a responsible, called and gifted man to do the work has called Him to do under the auspices of His Own design...just as women are called to work under those self-same auspices.

You also neglected to address this:


Do I think that this means women are not to speak at all in church or in a Sunday School setting?  No.  I believe that there is a great difference between testifying what God has done in ones life, and teaching what God has said.  In a mixed company, this is simply against what Paul has taught.  Either we deem it unneccesary for today, or we adhere to the teaching.  What do you do with it suzie?

Allinall-

It isnt about order as much as correct Biblical interpretation. You are implying that the Trinity is a Godhead of subordination. However, the Trinity is the epitomy of equality, mutuality and harmony. While Jesus took submission to the Father while in a temporary earthly role, He is not in permanent linear submission or subordination to the Father.

God never mandated one human in authority over another due to gender. Jesus and Paul began a process to restore the harmony and equality that God placed prior to man's fall.

I have not neglected this Scripture, I do not believe that you are interpreting it correctly. I have addressed this I believe in prior postings.

I completely understand the hierarchial position allinall, I probably know it as well as you. I have read extensively in regard to it. I do not agree with this interpretation, that is my point.

And the point is that you are taking out the calling, the giftedness, and God's will for persons and making it a matter of hierarchy, manmade authority, and cultural conditioning. These  are the very same issues that Paul and Jesus dealt with. The Scriptures tell us that there were women in leadership, teachers, and ministers of the Gospel. That God created marriage to be equality and mutuality. God alone desires to be authority of our homes, hearts, churches and marriages. This message is consistant throughout.

Allinall,

Amen,  That is what the word of GOD states.  

Not to raise a contentious argument again, but I have pointed out that previous to the newer english translations, this idea of woman as Pastors, was never an issue, in the church,  it is only with the newer vernacular versions, that one can use a word here and their, to compose a verse which appears to reject the command of ther Lord on this particular matter.




Actually I addressed it in my very first post entering this thread.  But it was rejected out of hand, by rationalizing it away.


Do I think that this means women are not to speak at all in church or in a Sunday School setting?  No.  I believe that there is a great difference between testifying what God has done in ones life, and teaching what God has said.  In a mixed company, this is simply against what Paul has taught.  Either we deem it unneccesary for today, or we adhere to the teaching.  What do you do with it suzie?

Amen,

I agreee perfectly with this and have stated the same thing at least three times.

There are many good Christian women, who can teach and in the proper setting, I even believe a woman, could actually teach men and women and children something.

The notion that Gods Word may be twisted to mean something it does not, is evidence of that, person not having a command of the word, and should not teach at all.

While driving down a street in one of the subarbs this last week, I saw a billboard type of sign at what appeared to be a church of some kind, which showed the Pastor as a womans name, and the sunday sermon, was wntitled "The Yellow brick Road", imagine that.  It has almost become a joke..

Actually it is a JOKE...what does the gosple have to do with the Wizard of OZ.

God Bless,

Petro  

Suzie,


Your continued arguing about htis issue, makes it clear you have not studied this matter at all, comparing spiritual with spiritual, nor precept upon precept; you had previously stated you have studied divergent views, which to me states you have ignored what the bible says, and sought out the truth elsewhere, in order to get the interpretation you desire.

And from what you have posted thus far,
it is evident you have DONE exactly that.


It is doubtful, you and I will ever meet this side of eternity, and even if we did, there is nothing to discuss, so far as this matter, s concerned, it is settled.

It is for this reason I will share with you, what is my mind.

Even if we met, to dicuss this issue, "Can women be Pastors", any conclusion you or I make as of the result of us seeking to come to a conclusion, could only be for the purpose of agreeing with scripture in order that it could be said we agree with the truth.  

And the only truthful answer to this matter is NO, woman cannot hold the position of a Pastor, they may be servants, ministers, helpers, in unlimited ways and there activities should limited, so that anything they do, should not become an opportunity for the unbelieving to use as an excuse to  blaspheme  the gosple of grace, neither should any Christian be involved in works which should hinder the gosple.

We have all heard of stories, whereby women, working alongside men, in churches have led to sensual acts, whereby even well intentioned christians teaming up (men and women, including pastors) have gone on to regret, their involvement in this ministry or that, marriages and churches have been broken up as the result of acts unbecoming Christian workers.

The main reason why, certain people today disagree with scripture is because they have allowed themselves to be led away from the truth by deceitful unbelieving workers in what is called and considered to be Christian ministery, and this is because these who follow while claiming to believe in Jesus, spend very little personal time in the scriptures, studying them "to show themselves approved of God" (2 Tim 2:25), that they might rightly divide the word of truth.  They (the followers) get involved in taking up causes, and as you said, studying "divergent' views, which lead many further away from the truth.

Allow me to point out, what is the cause of these dissenting views within the church according to the scriptures;  mind you, I will quote scriptures which, the same Paul, who wrote these words which you reject as being inspired, and as commands from  the Lord Himself at 1 Cor 14:34-38.

I have shared with you, how the Lord commanded his disciples,

Take heed that no man deceive you (Mat 24:4)  and again;

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Mat 7:15)

 Paul also warned the church at Corinth, about the source of these divisions, strifes, and dissensions whithin the congregation, it being the very root of these things, which causes our taking opposite sides in this controversial subject today  because of what YOU consider to be truth.

Please listen carefully to Pauls words;

While speaking to the elders of the churches of Ephesus, he said;
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.  (Acts 20:29-30)

Remember a "prophet" is one who gives out the word of God, such as pastors and ministers of the gopsle, and Paul states plainly at verse 30 above, that from among themselves, meaning their positions shall arise those speaking preverse things drawing away disciples after them.

One might ask himself, Who is it that is behind all of this?

Paul answers this for us at;

1 Cor 11
1  Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2  For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3  But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
7  Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
8  I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.
9  And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
10  As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
11  Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
12  But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

There is much confusion among so called christian churches today, and it appears to reign supreme, this is why there is debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: in these very churches and these things come because of teachings of these deceivers who teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (2 Cor 12:20, 1 Tim 6:4-5)

The fact, Paul was an Apostle, Evangelist, Teacher, Pastor (of the gentile flock) helper, didn't matter to him, he abased himself that Jesus might be lifted up, and glorified.

And Paul, what I have just quoted at 1 Tim 6, above, after having stated, what you obviously overlook and ignoring, while pressing this idea of women being pastors, to be a form of godliness.

Notice what he had already stated about the godliness which women should strive for;

1 Tim
7  Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8  I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15  Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

To outright reject and deny the words of Paul and profess Jesus never gave commands which Paul attributed to Him, that women should remain silence in the churches, is to claim godliness while actually being,  devoid of wisdom and understanding in the things pertain to the Word of God.

Only in consenting to and honoring, obeying the Word can Jesus be exalted.

To deny His Words is to deny ones FAITH, and this speaks louder than any extra-biblical teaching one might propose as coming from Him.

My closing word of encouragment to you is "read and study the pure word." That you might hide it in your heart.(Psa 119:11)  

That you might divide truth from error.

Besides..............  

Everybody has an opinion, you can test these against the sure Words of God.

Blessings,

Petro

Petro-

Our conversation is finished, if you didnt get my message, until you can get yourself under control.

Or, are you just needing the last word?

suzie,

To answer your question.

My previous post was my last word.

You are funny, you being out of control, with your teaching, calling me out of control.

I do enjoy, a little dry humor,  occasionaly  Hah ha..........

Petro

Very nicely put. Those ladies you mentioned, Deborah, Ruth, Mary, Phoebe, etc. are fantastic examples. Listen, Bible says, in the last days YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHESY
Greek-. propheteuo, prof-ate-yoo'-o; from G4396; to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office:--prophesy.

God can do what he wants to, and use anyone, Greek, Jew, Male, Female, cause the wall came down, Bible says so.

I attend(ed) a church where the men just sit there and do nothing. If it were not for the females, nothin' would get done, except for the male pastor.  There is no zeal or travail. Pittiful.

sunodino

I believe it, how pathetic...........!

Petro

It's a good thing I don't go to your church.  It's all messed up and sad.   :'(  

The men in my Church have the zeal, and do as ordained by the LORD as do the women.  Rebellious women can be such a handfull.   :-X  Glad we don't have any.   ;)

It is sad to see a church where men and/or women are lax in their fire to serve each other in the Lord. It is also sad to see those who are seeking power and self glory in the name of God. It is wonderful to see a church working through the Holy Spirit commited to seeking the lost and discipling believers and rising up leaders and being all God calls us to be.

Whats more sad, is when women, are not only rebellious, but simply want to have the last word, this is what drives men to be coach potatoes in the churches, were the woman want to run everything.

The divorce rate must be awful high in this churches, I imagine..

Petro