Women ordained in the Baptist Church [Archive] - Page 2

53Isaiah

2nd September 2006, 06:17 PM

Thank you for your reply.
I think you misunderstood me. Let me put it plainly, I guess I just believe the Bible
You’re insinuating that I do not. It’s ironic because I consider myself first and foremost a bible believer, and it is my first and final authority. He my stating the pattern he has through out it.
If this is teaching what I know by witness or word to men, I see nothing wrong with this, and I don't need to run grab a man (in most situations) to have them explain things for me.
There is nothing wrong with your witnessing to men, and explanation come by the HS.
A pastor is not there to be a leader for the rest of your life; the pastor is there to help us become leaders ourselves.
I believe the scripture teach that the role of pastor will exist to the coming of our Savior, we as members of the local assembly will be under the authority of pastors.
We don't just follow the leader in this sense our whole lives, there is a goal, a place we are aiming for of being able to rely on our relationship with God and make our own decisions.
I see your confusion, Discipleship and the Pastor office are different.
You have been given examples repeatedly, I am not here to change your mind or you heart, this I cannot do. I am in this thread to support those that know this and Christians keep telling them they are wrong.
Could you please just link to the post(s) in this thread as to the examples? I did not see them.
Like it or not God is using women all over the world, as well as men to share His plan.
I do like it. In fact I love it. Missionaries hold a very deep appreciation in me.
Demeaning this is clearly demeaning God and potentially harming the witness.
Yes, this is point. We must not let modern culture stand in the pay of the pattern that God so clearly lays out in his word.
Satan has a great thing going here….
Yes his influence on the church is quite evident.

53Isaiah

2nd September 2006, 06:24 PM

EasyYoke

2nd September 2006, 06:27 PM

53Isaiah,

If some denomination rejecting women with the gift of teaching to be shepherds, know that organization is not in God's will.

It's very simple. The decision is that easy in God's Word.

christian73

2nd September 2006, 06:44 PM

53Isaiah,

If some denomination rejecting women with the gift of teaching to be shepherds, know that organization is not in God's will.

It's very simple. The decision is that easy in God's Word.
The Bible doesn't say women can't teach, just that they can't be deacons or overseers (pastors) of the church. It's found in 1 Timothy 3.

EasyYoke

2nd September 2006, 06:47 PM

christian73,

You have misinterpreted what was meant, to whom was causing the problem, as well as the times.

christian73

2nd September 2006, 07:16 PM

christian73,

You have misinterpreted what was meant, to whom was causing the problem, as well as the times.
If I have, I apologize. All I was pointing out was the Bible states in 1 Timothy 3, that men can be ordained.

HypoTypoSis

2nd September 2006, 08:10 PM

So, IF, for example, your church board were to appoint a woman pastor and you were to "pitch a fit" about it what would God have to say to you regarding His authority based upon the verses in my previous post?

I would respectfully explain to them form the Word of God, what he says about the matter.

Apparently, there is a rendering problem in the messageboard software ;) as it appears you are not the first that has assumed the question referred to what the elders or church committee might say, which is not the case in this hypothetical.

As can be evidenced, I have boldened the overlooked particulars of the question and, hopefully, it will make things easier.

The issue, obviously, revolves around authority and, properly or not delegated or applied, what the ultimate 'end user' believers attitude should be in respecting that authority; which is the reason for the biblical quote:

"...if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with Me."

Properly or not bestowed authority is not the issue; nor is rightly or wrongly applied authority the issue. The issue is whether or not we submitted to that authority in a Christ-like fashion--as demonstrated in the partial verse quote above.

At what point do we ignore and do an end run around direct authority pleading, instead, to the Ultimate Dispenser (God) of that authority; and what will that Dispenser have to say about our ignoring (the elders/committee that chose the pastor) and disregarding those (the pastor) that have been bestowed with His authority?

It is at this point that, depending upon our own actions, whether the sin of defiance has now beset us.

HypoTypoSis

2nd September 2006, 08:29 PM

DeaconDean

2nd September 2006, 09:56 PM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them.

Listen friends, many of you know how I feel on this subject. We are Christians, which means, we are "little Christs." And as such, we are to model our lives after the pattern Jesus set. When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He rebuked him with scriptures, (see Matt. 4). Old Testament scriptures to be exact. To Jesus, the O.T. scriptures were authoritative. They were what He was subject to. And as such, He fulfilled all the law in that the ceremonial and ritual laws are now "null and void." And by that, I mean that the "ritual" sacrifices are no longer needed. And likewise, the "ceremonial" circumcision is no longer needed. But certain O.T. laws still do exist. The priesthood is one that does.

Listen friends, I would never regulate women as second class citizens. Jesus seen their worth, so why are we groupping around in the dark still. The qualifications in the O.T. set the priesthood for men. And it was made a "perpetual" law by God. Paul described the qualifications for "bishops/elders" as for men in his usage of "the husband of one wife." (1 Tim. 3:2) If Paul had taught anything other than what the O.T. laws laid out, then Paul would be considered as a heretic.

Paul said:

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." -Rom. 7:12

There is nothing wrong with women ministering to other women. There is nothing wrong with women evangelizing, as the woman at the well did.

"Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?" -John 4:29

But women are not supposed to be in the position of Pastor of the church. Pastors of the church are the under-shepard or caretakers of the flock. This was designated by God to be a position for men. It's not a sexist thing people, it's a scripture thing! If one person can show me in the Bible where a woman ever held the position of "bishop/elder," or held the position of high priest, then I'll gladly change my position. But just as Jesus regarded the scriptures as authoritative, so must I.

"And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons." -Ex. 28:1

"And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons." -Ex. 29:9

Just as the rainbow is a "perpetual" promise from God to remind us of His promise never to bring the flood again upon mankind, so the office of priest is a perpetual one.

Just as April 14th is to be observed as the Passover:

"In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover." -Lev.23:5

And God wanted them to do forever:

"Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season." -Num. 9:2

So shall the priesthood be kept the same.

God Bless,

Till all are one.

JacobHall86

2nd September 2006, 10:02 PM

HypoTypoSis> I refuse to answer your question until you word it in a way that is not disrespectful. By answering it in the way its worded it implies I would pitch a fit, Which I would not. I would talk to the board and tell them what the Bible says about this matter and how their actions are contrary to Scripture.

edb19 has a Quote from John Calvin in her sig that is perfect for this.

"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's Truth was attacked and yet would remain silent."

That is exactly how I feel. If my church acted in a way that was contrary to Scripture and I did not say anything I would be a coward.

mont974x4

2nd September 2006, 10:17 PM

1 Timothy 3:1, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."

"a man" = Greek = "tis" = some one, a certain one.

From the translation it appears sex is not at issue, rather, that anyone, male or female, may be a bishop or, by another term, an overseer.

This is the definition of "man" as used in 1 Tim 3:1 taken from Strongs Concordnace.

G1536
εἴ τις
ei tis
i tis
From G1487 and G5100; if any: - he that, if a (-ny) man (‘s thing, from any, ought), whether any, whosoever.

The complete definition certainly does consider gender. Furthermore, and most importantly, the context of the verse indicates a male person in the authority position. Verse 11 does tell us what we should expect from their wife.

1Ti 3:1 Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money;
1Ti 3:4 one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;
1Ti 3:15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 01:02 AM

Look, I'm thoroughly sick of this debate, but let me say a few things:

Just because that verse says "a man" doesn't mean that only a man may be a bishop. I don't think that the writer was trying to make a point about how could or couldn't be a bishop but the qualities of one in the office.

And I also submit that saying that women can't preach is making them second-class citizens. It's making a hierarchy whereupon men are "superior" to women by virtue of the fact that they can preach and women cannot. And it's not based on talent or ability - it's based on gender and extreme literal interpretations of a select few verses in the Bible.

If Jesus had intended for this to become such a big issue, he would have surely mentioned it during his time on earth. But did Jesus not call everyone to him? "28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28.

The entire basis of this argument is really based on one verse: "the husband of one wife". Anyone who thinks that that verse is supposed to shed miraculous light on the role of women is wrong. If we must be so absolutely literal about the verses, let's assume that if this was supposed to be such a big issue, they would have specifically said, "women shall not be bishops".

Don't tell me that these verses are "not open to interpretation", because the arguments you all have been providing on this forum are themselves interpretations. What you're really saying is "interpretation except for mine is wrong", and I cannot accept that. The verse "women are to remain silent in the church" is vague and nebulous enough to be open to multiple interpretations - not just the "this proves conclusively that women can't preach!" Thr verse "I do not permit a woman to teach" is own-opinionish as to also be open to interpretation, as well as a look into the context in which the verse was written. It's a cop-out to say that these verses are "not open to interpretation". And that's all I'll say on THAT matter.

Do you realize that most churches are now accepting women pastors? Even the Trinity Broadcasting Network, as fundamentalist as they are, allow female pastors. Years ago, the word "obey" was stricken (struck?) from marriage vows. Society is slowly becoming more equal in terms of gender, and the opinion that women can't be pastors is becoming the minority. I know that you're all going to say, "well, the world changes, but God doesn't". While true, there are reasons that certain traditions change, if you know what I mean....

Now why don't we find a topic that's much more pressing to the Christian community than this one.
Ringo

DeaconDean

3rd September 2006, 01:06 AM

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 01:16 AM

Just because man says it is right do we have to accept it? And if your church ordains a woman, good for your church. But that doesn"t mean I have to accept it or sit under a woman pastor.

What do the scriptures say?
I'm not saying, "everyone else is doing this; conform". My point is that bad traditions - unbiblical traditions - die a hard and well-deserved death. Justification of slavery through the Bible, for example. Maybe it should tell us all something that the unequal gender rules are vanishing.
Ringo

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26418376#post26418376)
1 Timothy 3:1, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."

"a man" = Greek = "tis" = some one, a certain one.

From the translation it appears sex is not at issue, rather, that anyone, male or female, may be a bishop or, by another term, an overseer.

This is the definition of "man" as used in 1 Tim 3:1 taken from Strongs Concordnace.

G1536
εἴ τις
ei tis
i tis
From G1487 and G5100; if any: - he that, if a (-ny) man (‘s thing, from any, ought), whether any, whosoever.

The complete definition certainly does consider gender. Furthermore, and most importantly, the context of the verse indicates a male person in the authority position. Verse 11 does tell us what we should expect from their wife.

1Ti 3:1 Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Here's the entire first verse with inflections in the Greek:

1 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.

So far we have two sources, Bullinger's Lexicon and Strong's Concordance.

Following is a screenshot of the Westcott & Hort Nestle-Aland interlinear.

http://www.nactex.com/1%20Tim%203-1.jpg

Tic (tis): Indefinite, Nominative, Singular, masculine

episkopE: Noun, genitive, Singular, feminine

episkopE: Strong's 1984:

oversight
overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian churchReviewing the rules on gender grammar pronouns can be anything depending on the noun or the usage. Each form of a determiner is associated with one gender, and therefore all nouns must be assigned a gender, whatever their meaning. If the gender is known then everything relative to this must be in the same gender. If it is unknown the masculine form frequently is also used.

A quick examination of the Westcott-Hort screenshot of verse 1 above it will be readily seen that with the exception of episkopE ( ἐπισκοπῆς ) which would, understandably, be feminine, the relative words of the verse are, too, all masculine.

Upon closer examination of the entire chapter the following are all grammatical feminine gender:

women
the church (out-called: ekklesia)
Truth
boldness,
faith,
slanderers
grave
conscience,
good report (witness/testimony/ideal)
subjectionAside from the few remaining non-masculine non-feminine grammatical gender (neuter, children, etc) terms virtually every word in the entire chapter is in the masculine gender form.

Now then, it must be understood that the grammatical gender rules applied herein are through an English lens of understanding with an overall view of all languages in general and not Greek specifically which in its own right is uniquely different. When dealing with pronoun gender (grammar in general) rules are often highly complex.

Case in point, 'any', anyone, they and 'their' can be any or all genders or they can be none as in inanimate objects. Then again, as another example, depending upon the language and the usage the "Sun" and the "Moon" may or may not be mascuiline, feminine or neuter. There are simply far too many variables to list.

In any event, at this point and without further and closer examination of the texts, I am leaning toward this passage in question (I Tim 3:1) and "any" (τις = man) to mean just that as since the majority of the entire chapter has male referenced gender. If anyone else has any further input to help further clarify the issue, please do.

Also, it must be noted that what customs, traditions and external social influences there may have been at the time that influenced the masculine domination of this particular issue and to what degree it may or may not apply to today.

In closing, I would like to point out that while I am leaning toward the 'men' side of this issue it is not by any means the end all conclusion to the matter, just where I have come so far in acting as the devil's advocate throughout this particular journey through the scriptures.

Meanwhile, it would be interesting to learn what the exact bibical basis is for those denominations that do appoint women to positions of authority.

EasyYoke

3rd September 2006, 02:40 AM

I can say one thing for certain. If you reject woman as either apostles or elders, you will not receive the reward of reigning in the millennial kingdom. Make no mistake about it!

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 02:55 AM

Here's the entire first verse with inflections in the Greek:

1 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.

So far we have two sources, Bullinger's Lexicon and Strong's Concordance.

Following is a screenshot of the Westcott & Hort Nestle-Aland interlinear.

http://www.nactex.com/1%20Tim%203-1.jpg

Tic (tis): Indefinite, Nominative, Singular, masculine

episkopE: Noun, genitive, Singular, feminine

episkopE: Strong's 1984:

oversight
overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian churchReviewing the rules on gender grammar pronouns can be anything depending on the noun or the usage. Each form of a determiner is associated with one gender, and therefore all nouns must be assigned a gender, whatever their meaning. If the gender is known then everything relative to this must be in the same gender. If it is unknown the masculine form frequently is also used.

A quick examination of the Westcott-Hort screenshot of verse 1 above it will be readily seen that with the exception of episkopE ( ἐπισκοπῆς ) which would, understandably, be feminine, the relative words of the verse are, too, all masculine.

Upon closer examination of the entire chapter the following are all grammatical feminine gender:

women
the church (out-called: ekklesia)
Truth
boldness,
faith,
slanderers
grave
conscience,
good report (witness/testimony/ideal)
subjectionAside from the few remaining non-masculine non-feminine grammatical gender (neuter, children, etc) terms virtually every word in the entire chapter is in the masculine gender form.

Now then, it must be understood that the grammatical gender rules applied herein are through an English lens of understanding with an overall view of all languages in general and not Greek specifically which in its own right is uniquely different. When dealing with pronoun gender (grammar in general) rules are often highly complex.

Case in point, 'any', anyone, they and 'their' can be any or all genders or they can be none as in inanimate objects. Then again, as another example, depending upon the language and the usage the "Sun" and the "Moon" may or may not be mascuiline, feminine or neuter. There are simply far too many variables to list.

In any event, at this point and without further and closer examination of the texts, I am leaning toward this passage in question (I Tim 3:1) and "any" (τις = man) to mean just that as since the majority of the entire chapter has male referenced gender. If anyone else has any further input to help further clarify the issue, please do.

Also, it must be noted that what customs, traditions and external social influences there may have been at the time that influenced the masculine domination of this particular issue and to what degree it may or may not apply to today.

In closing, I would like to point out that while I am leaning toward the 'men' side of this issue it is not by any means the end all conclusion to the matter, just where I have come so far in acting as the devil's advocate throughout this particular journey through the scriptures.

Meanwhile, it would be interesting to learn what the exact bibical basis is for those denominations that do appoint women to positions of authority.
You're basing almost an entire belief about women on one single verse. You can throw out all the Greek you want, but that still doesn't prove your case.
Ringo

DeaconDean

3rd September 2006, 02:56 AM

I'm not saying, "everyone else is doing this; conform". My point is that bad traditions - unbiblical traditions - die a hard and well-deserved death. Justification of slavery through the Bible, for example. Maybe it should tell us all something that the unequal gender rules are vanishing.
Ringo

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them.

If TBN says it is right are we to follow there example?

If others are ordianing women pastors, are we to assume it is biblical?

As I have shown, Jesus regarded the O.T. scriptures as authoritative. The Apolstle Paul says:

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." -2 Tim. 4:2

Paul says: "be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine." Paul said to Timothy also:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" -2 Tim. 3:16

Notice what it said? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,"

Yet here you are advocating a different doctrine.

I may a simple old country boy, but I do know the difference between standing up for what is right and what is wrong. And changing the word is wrong!

Like I said before, God said He is unchangable:

"For I am the LORD, I change not;" -Mal. 3:6

And God's word is the same way, it does not change.

If you want to change it, be my guest. But as for me, I'll not compromise it for you, CF, or anybody else. If you'll compromise God's word, you'll compromise God. And that is what is wrong with todays society. We have changed God's word so that it doesn't mean the same anymore. You may argue that because of the time those scriptures were written, women were treated different. And scriptures should be read in the context of time and taken that way. I beg to differ. We have the scriptures that say:

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." -Ecc. 1:9

The same sins that were happening in Sodom and Gomorrah's time are the same sins happening today. Does that mean we should change what the Bible says to reflect that? God forbid if we do.

I have sound Biblical teachings from the Old Testament and the New Testament to stand on. And I'll not compromise it for nobody.

Just because the Episcopal church is ordaining women as pastors, does not make it right. Whether anybody ordains women as pastors does not make it right. What does make it right is what do the scriptures say is right.

But hey, I can see we can't convince you otherwise, so I'll just say God bless you in your convictions on this.

There're not my convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean

3rd September 2006, 03:09 AM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them.

J.C. Ryle says:

"There are few things in religion which men are so ready to forget as the duty of “contending earnestly for the faith,” and holding fast the truth.

Controversy is seldom popular. Most men like a quiet life in religion. They dislike anything like strife, trouble, contest, and exertion. They will give up much for the specious pretext of securing peace. They are apt to forget that peace procured at the expense of truth is not worth having. In short, they need reminding of St. Paul’s golden words: “Hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. v. 21).

He wrote as if he foresaw by the Spirit that the good tidings of the Gospel would soon be corrupted, spoiled, and plucked away from the Church. He wrote as one who foresaw that Satan and all his agents would labour hard to cast down Christ’s truth. He wrote as if he would forewarn men of this danger, and he cries, “Hold fast that which is good.”

Reader, the advice is always needed—needed as long as the world stands. There is a tendency to decay in the very best of human institutions. The best visible Church of Christ is not free from this liability to degenerate. It is made up of fallible men. There is always in it a tendency to decay. We see the leaven of evil creeping into many a Church, even in the Apostle’s time. There were evils in the Corinthian Church, evils in the Ephesian Church, evils in the Galatian Church. All these things are meant to be our warnings and beacons in these latter times. All show the great necessity laid upon the Church to remember the Apostle’s word: “Hold fast that which is good.”

Many a Church of Christ since then has fallen away for the want of remembering this principle. Their ministers and members forgot that Satan is always labouring to bring in false doctrine. They forgot that he can transform himself into an angel of light,—that he can make darkness appear light, and light darkness; truth appear falsehood, and falsehood truth. If he cannot destroy Christianity, he ever tries to spoil it. If he cannot prevent the form of godliness, he endeavours to rob Churches of the power. No Church is ever safe that forgets these things, and does not bear in mind the Apostle’s injunction, “Hold fast that which is good.”

Reader, if ever there was a time in the world when Churches were put upon their trial, whether they would hold fast the truth or not, that time is the present time, and those Churches are the Protestant Churches of our own land. Popery, that old enemy of our nation, is coming in upon us in this day like a flood. We are assaulted by open enemies without, and betrayed continually by false friends within. Roman Catholic churches, and chapels, and schools, and conventual and monastic establishments are continually increasing around us. Month after month brings tidings of some new defection from the ranks of the Church of England to the ranks of the Church of Rome. Already the Pope has parcelled our country into bishoprics, and speaks like one who fancies that by and by he shall divide the spoil. Already he seems to foresee a time when England shall be as the patrimony of St. Peter’s, when London shall be as Rome, when St. Paul’s shall be as St. Peter’s, and Lambeth Palace shall be as the Vatican itself. Surely now, or never, we ought all of us to awake, and “hold fast that which is good.”

And, reader, the question is now, whether we are going to abide quietly, sit still and fold our hands, and do nothing to resist the assault. Are we really men of understanding of the times? Do we know the day of our visitation? Surely this is a crisis in the history of our Churches and of our land. It is a time which will soon prove whether we know the value of our privileges, or whether, like Amalek, “the first of the nations,” our “latter end shall be that we perish for ever.” It is a time which will soon prove whether we intend to allow our candlestick to be quietly removed, or to repent and do our first works. If we love the open Bible,—if we love the preaching of the Gospel,—if we love the freedom of reading that Bible, no man letting or hindering us, and the opportunity of hearing that Gospel, no man forbidding us,—if we love civil liberty,—if we love religious liberty,—if these are precious to our souls, we must all make up our minds to “hold fast,” lest by and by we lose all.

If we would hold fast that which is good, we must not tolerate or countenance any doctrine that is not the pure doctrine of Christ’s Gospel. There is a hatred that is downright charity: that is the hatred of erroneous doctrine. There is an intolerance which is downright praiseworthy: that is the intolerance of false teaching in the pulpit. Who would ever think of tolerating a little poison given to him day by day? If men come among you who do not preach “all the counsel of God,” who do not preach of Christ, and sin, and holiness, of ruin, and redemption, and regeneration,—or do not preach of these things in a Scriptural way, you ought to cease to hear them. You ought to act upon the injunction given by the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament: “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge” (Prov. xix. 27). You ought to carry out the spirit shown by the Apostle Paul, in Gal. i. 8: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.” If we can bear to hear Christ’s truth mangled or adulterated,—and can see no harm in listening to that which is another Gospel,—and can sit at ease while sham Christianity is poured into our ears,—and can go home comfortably afterwards and not burn with holy indignation,—if this be the case, there is little chance of our ever doing much to resist Rome. If we are content to hear Jesus Christ not put in His rightful place, we are not men and women who are likely to do Christ much service, or fight a good fight on His side. He that is not zealous against error, is not likely to be zealous for truth.

Last of all, if it be right to “hold fast that which is good,” let us make sure that we have each laid hold personally upon Christ’s truth for ourselves. Reader, it will not save you and me to know all controversies, and to be able to detect everything that is false. Head knowledge will never bring you and me to heaven. It will not save us to be able to argue and reason with Roman Catholics, or to detect the errors of Pope’s bulls, or pastoral letters. Let us see that we each lay hold upon Jesus Christ for ourselves by our own personal faith. Let us see to it that we each flee for refuge and lay hold upon the hope set before us in His glorious Gospel. Let us do this, and all shall be well with us, whatever else may go ill. Let us do this, and then all things are ours. The Church may fail. The State may go to ruin. The foundations of all establishments may be shaken. The enemies of truth may for a season prevail; but as for us, all shall be well. We shall have in this world peace, and in the world which is to come life everlasting, for we shall have Christ.

Reader, if you have not yet laid hold on this hope in Christ, seek it at once. Call on the Lord Jesus to give it to you. Give Him no rest till you know and feel that you are His.

If you have laid hold on this hope, hold it fast. Prize it highly, for it will stand by you when everything else fails."

http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/hold_fast.htm

God Bless

Till all are one.

EasyYoke

3rd September 2006, 03:33 AM

Junia is a woman apostle - case closed.

But where are the women elders?

Easily solved! In those days women did not have any credibility as it was a male-centric world.

However, today women are presidents, CEO's, prime ministers, and they can even vote. Oh yes they can!

Today, if anyone in the Church says women can not be elders, do one thing please. Try to help them, but if they can't repent towards their treatment of women, walk away, because they only drag you down to their level and will not be of benefit to the body of Christ.

DeaconDean

3rd September 2006, 03:44 AM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them.

Debateable because it says Junia was known:

"are of note among the apostles" -Rom. 16:7 (KJV)

Now as to whether Junia was known to the apostles, or was a co-worker with the apostles is the issue. Just like:

"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:" -Rom. 16:1

One could argue that Phebe is a "deaconess" because the word used here means servant.

From Bible.org:

"What is Junia’s Relation to the Apostles?

Although the vast bulk of commentaries and translations regard Junia(s) to be one of the apostles (in a non-technical sense), such a view is based on less than adequate evidence. At present, I am involved in a search of the key term in Romans 16:7 that would help us decide this issue—ejpivshmo". Using the TLG database (which now incorporates all Greek literature from Homer to AD 600 and most Greek literature from AD 600 to 1453), as well as the PHI CD of Greek non-literary papyri, we are able to scan over 100 million words of Greek. Not all of the relevant materials have yet been translated, but of what has a certain pattern has developed.
At issue is whether we should translate the phrase in Romans 16:7—ejpivshmo" ejn toi'" ajpostovloi"—as “outstanding among the apostles” or “well known to the apostles.” Although almost all translations assume the first rendering, this is by no means a given. Even in a meticulous commentary such as Fitzmyer’s, though both options are discussed, no evidence is supplied for either. But the evidence is out there; mere opinion is inadequate.
In order to resolve this issue two items need to be examined. First is the lexical field of the adjective ejpivshmo". Second is the the syntactical implication of this adjective in collocation with ejn plus the dative.
First, for the lexical issue. ejpivshmo" can mean “well known, prominent, outstanding, famous, notable, notorious” (BAGD 298 s.v. ejpivshmo"; LSJ 655-56; LN 28.31). The lexical domain can roughly be broken down into two streams: ejpivshmo" is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding [among]”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known [to]”).
Second, the key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. Hence, we turn to the ejn toi'" ajpostovloi". As a working hypothesis, we would suggest the following. Since a noun in the genitive is typically used with comparative adjectives, we might expect such with an implied comparison. Thus, if in Rom 16:7 Paul meant to say that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding among the apostles, we might have expected him to use the genitive tw'n ajpostovlwn. On the other hand, if an elative force is suggested—i.e., where no comparison is even hinted at—we might expect ejn + the dative.
As an aside, some commentators reject such an elative sense in this passage because of the collocation with the preposition ejn, but such a view is based on a misperception of the force of the whole construction. On the one hand, there is a legitimate complaint about seeing ejn with dative as indicating an agent , and to the extent that “well known by the apostles” implies an action on the apostles’ part (viz., that the apostles know) such an objection has merit. On the other hand, the idea of something being known by someone else does not necessarily imply agency. This is so for two reasons. First, the action implied may actually be the passive reception of some event or person (thus, texts such as 1 Tim 3:16, in which the line w[fqh ajggevloi" can be translated either as “was seen by angels” or “appeared to angels”; either way the “action” performed by angels is by its very nature relatively passive). Such an idea can be easily accommodated in Rom 16:7: “well known to/by the apostles” simply says that the apostles were recipients of information, not that they actively performed “knowing.” Thus, although ejn plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ejn plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” Second, even if ejn with the dative plural is used in the sense of “among” (so Moo here, et alii), this does not necessarily locate Andronicus and Junia within the band of apostles; rather, it is just as likely that knowledge of them existed among the apostles.
Turning to the actual data, we notice the following. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ejpivshmo" is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case. For example, in 3 Macc 6:1 we read Eleazaro" dev ti" ajnhVr ejpivshmo" tw'n ajpoV thv" cwvra" iJerevwn (“Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”). Here Eleazar was one of the priests of the country, yet was comparatively oustanding in their midst. The genitive is used for the implied comparison (tw'n iJerevwn). In Ps Sol 17:30 the idea is very clear that the Messiah would “glorify the Lord in a prominent [place] in relation to all the earth” (toVn kuvrion doxavsei ejn ejpishvmw/ pavsh"th'" gh'"). The prominent place is a part of the earth, indicated by the genitive modifier. Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1 speaks of an “outstanding ram from a great flock” (krioV" ejpivshmo" ejk megavlou). Here ejk plus the genitive is used instead of the simple genitive, perhaps to suggest the ablative notion over the partitive, since this ram was chosen for sacrifice (and thus would soon be separated from the flock). But again, the salient features are present: (a) an implied comparison (b) of an item within a larger group, (c) followed by (ejk plus) the genitive to specify the group to which it belongs.
When, however, an elative notion is found, ejn plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Ps Sol 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ejpishvmw/ ejn toi'" e[qnesin). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any I have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ejpivshmo", (b) followed by ejn plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting Rom 16:7 should be taken. That the parallels discovered so far conform to our working hypothesis at least gives warrant to seeing Andronicus’ and Junia’s fame as that which was among the apostles. Whether the alternative view has semantic plausibility remains to be seen.
In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, but were known to the apostles. To be sure, our conclusion is tentative. But it is always safer to stand on the side of some evidence than on the side of none at all."

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1163

God Bless

Till all are one.

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 03:51 AM

"...it is always safer to stand on the side of some evidence than on the side of none at all."
Well said!

DeaconDean

3rd September 2006, 04:01 AM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them.

Yes but did you read the line before?

In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, but were known to the apostles.

Furthermore, what are the qualifications for an apostle?

The Qualifications of an Apostle

An apostle had to have the spiritual gift of apostleship. The gift was provided by Jesus Christ after His ascension into Heaven, Eph. 4:8-11. The gift was imparted by the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, 1 Cor. 12:11; Acts 2.
The apostle received his gift and office by the sovereign decision of God the Father, 1 Cor. 1:1; 12:18; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1.
The apostle had to have been an eyewitness of the resurrected Lord, Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1.
The Credentials of an Apostle
An apostle was endowed with miraculous powers of miracles, Heb. 2:4; 2 Cor. 12:12.
An apostle had success in evangelism, 1 Cor. 9:2; 2 Cor. 3:1-3; Gal. 2:7-9.
An apostle had the capacity to suffer patiently, 2 Cor. 12:12.There is no evidence to support your theory. Least wise I see none from Romans.

"Andronicus and Junia were probably not called apostles in Romans 16:7 (http://www.learnthebible.org/B45C016.htm#V7). This is the only verse where these "two men" are mentioned. They are said to be Paul’s kinsmen and fellowprisoners and were “of note among the apostles.” Does this mean, as some say, that they were noteworthy apostles? Someone could be “of note” among the apostles without being an apostle. It could mean that the apostles had noted them as significant servants of the Lord. Also, if they were apostles of note, they were some of the more important apostles. But this is the only verse of the Bible where these two men are ever mentioned. Certainly, they are not being called apostles here."

http://www.learnthebible.org/apostles_today.htm

Thanks anyway. You see, one could name their baby leslie. Does that tell if the baby is male or female? I actually went to school with a boy named Sue. Sue Falls to be exact. The nature of the name does not tell the story. One set of theologians says it could be a female, one says it could be male. There is no scriptural evidence either way. So until we are 100% sure that these two names are female, we must err on the side of scripture. But thanks for the thought, I haven't had a chance to use this argument before. It's like the old saying: "You say tomato, I say tomatoe." I will go with the scriptures and stay with my position.

God Bless

Till all are one.

EasyYoke

3rd September 2006, 05:30 AM

That all sounds quite rationalistic. Of note among the Apostles. Being an Apostle there may be some Apostles more or less noteworthy, as Paul was most noteworthy. How important are the Apostles? Very! Since only Apostles are directly commissioned by God to appoint Elders to set up the churches. This is the chain of command or authority, if you will.

Paul is already noting many Christians who are noteworthy among the Apostles, so Junia is noteworthy among the Apostles because she is an Apostle.

Logic of the passage dictates this rendering, unless shown otherwise. That is stand firm in God's desire to not be male-centric towards the body of Christ to quicken Christ's return which is His will.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 07:00 AM

Thanks for the post, and I agree with your views on deacons and pastors.

The Bible doesn't say women can't teach, just that they can't be deacons or overseers (pastors) of the church. It's found in 1 Timothy 3.

The Bible does not say that children (say 12 years old) can't teach (in the church, over men) too but no one is arguing the matter. Why? Because it does not follow the pattern. But I would reminded them that there is at lease one example if this happening. Jesus himself. With bad doctrine some my take Jesus act and started ordaining children.

The Bible does not say women can teach (in the church, over men), nor are there examples of them doing so. Reason is, its does not follow the pattern.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 07:32 AM

Having a completed profile, would help to understand where your coming.

At what point do we ignore and do an end run around direct authority pleading, instead, to the Ultimate Dispenser (God) of that authority; and what will that Dispenser have to say about our ignoring (the elders/committee that chose the pastor) and disregarding those (the pastor) that have been bestowed with His authority?

In this particular hypothetical, the elders/committee do not have the authority in ordaining women just as they do not have the authority to ordain children. Why? Because their authority does not supersede God’s.

The “chain of command” is a Biblical principal that allows us to objectively deal with conflicting orders. As you have noted God is the final/higher authority.

The Bible does not state that women and children can be ordained, nor are there examples of them doing so. The Bible does expressly say to ordain men, and there are many examples. Gods will on the matter, and the application of the matter is clearly seen.

This is something that happening because of influence by modern culture, not the Bible.

JacobHall86

3rd September 2006, 07:49 AM

JacobHall86

3rd September 2006, 07:53 AM

Paul says women are not to teach or usurp the authority of Men. Case Closed.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 12:26 PM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them.

If TBN says it is right are we to follow there example?

If others are ordianing women pastors, are we to assume it is biblical?

As I have shown, Jesus regarded the O.T. scriptures as authoritative. The Apolstle Paul says:

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." -2 Tim. 4:2

Paul says: "be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine." Paul said to Timothy also:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" -2 Tim. 3:16

Notice what it said? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,"

Yet here you are advocating a different doctrine.

I may a simple old country boy, but I do know the difference between standing up for what is right and what is wrong. And changing the word is wrong!

Like I said before, God said He is unchangable:

"For I am the LORD, I change not;" -Mal. 3:6

And God's word is the same way, it does not change.

If you want to change it, be my guest. But as for me, I'll not compromise it for you, CF, or anybody else. If you'll compromise God's word, you'll compromise God. And that is what is wrong with todays society. We have changed God's word so that it doesn't mean the same anymore. You may argue that because of the time those scriptures were written, women were treated different. And scriptures should be read in the context of time and taken that way. I beg to differ. We have the scriptures that say:

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." -Ecc. 1:9

The same sins that were happening in Sodom and Gomorrah's time are the same sins happening today. Does that mean we should change what the Bible says to reflect that? God forbid if we do.

I have sound Biblical teachings from the Old Testament and the New Testament to stand on. And I'll not compromise it for nobody.

Just because the Episcopal church is ordaining women as pastors, does not make it right. Whether anybody ordains women as pastors does not make it right. What does make it right is what do the scriptures say is right.

But hey, I can see we can't convince you otherwise, so I'll just say God bless you in your convictions on this.

There're not my convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.
If you had read my post in its entirety, you would have understood what I was trying to tell you. I don't know how clearer I could be.

And also, no no no - I'm advocating a different interpretation. Not doctrine.
Ringo

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 12:29 PM

Having a completed profile, would help to understand where your coming.

In this particular hypothetical, the elders/committee do not have the authority in ordaining women just as they do not have the authority to ordain children. Why? Because their authority does not supersede God’s.

The “chain of command” is a Biblical principal that allows us to objectively deal with conflicting orders. As you have noted God is the final/higher authority.

The Bible does not state that women and children can be ordained, nor are there examples of them doing so. The Bible does expressly say to ordain men, and there are many examples. Gods will on the matter, and the application of the matter is clearly seen.

This is something that happening because of influence by modern culture, not the Bible.
Doesn't say that blacks can be ordained. Does that mean that they can't be ordained? No, it means that they weren't explicitly mentioned. So what? It seems strange to base almost one's entire belief about this subject on the strict interpretation of one verse.
Ringo

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 12:53 PM

Don't tell me that these verses are "not open to interpretation", because the arguments you all have been providing on this forum are themselves interpretations. What you're really saying is "interpretation except for mine is wrong", and I cannot accept that.

It is not a mater of one being right and the other wrong, it is about God being right, and us having a full understanding of it. If its his truth we seek to understand and live, we must be willing to hear others on the matter with an open heart.

The verse "women are to remain silent in the church" is vague and nebulous enough to be open to multiple interpretations - not just the "this proves conclusively that women can't preach!

I do not see the verse as vague or nebulous. It says what it says. That and it is supported by a pattern thought out the bible as to the equal and harmonious roles of men an women.

When we disturb the pattern God has set out for us, there is cause and affect through out scripture:

How is the husband of a women pastor supposed to be the spiritual leaders in the home when his wife is his spiritual leader in the church?

This is just one example. There are many doctrinal implications to women pastors; this is why Paul explicitly told Timothy what he did.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 01:05 PM

You're basing almost an entire belief about women on one single verse.

No not just a verse, but a pattern through out the bible from cover to cover. That and it's also in man's law and the natural law.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 01:14 PM

EasyYoke

3rd September 2006, 01:15 PM

Thats a very bold statement to be making, especially without any Scriptural backing, and even more so to be saying it to people who DO have scriptural Backing for their beleifs.

Furthermore, noone who is on the side of women pastors has given anything other than personal experience feelings or how the church should change for society as reasons to ordain women. Never giving Biblical New Testament evidence as to why.

Since there was a woman Apostle Junia, that's all you need; and since women were not respected for such roles, it was not time for women to be Elders then. That was then, this is now. That's all you need. Get out of your mental gymnatistics, they fail you.

Now they can be, as they are ceo of corporations, prime ministers of countries, so on and so forthe quite adequately. You may have even heard, women can vote now too. :wave:

Let the Spirit flow with the Word. Don't be a tighty.

EasyYoke

3rd September 2006, 01:19 PM

Paul says women are not to teach or usurp the authority of Men. Case Closed.

Yes, women should cover their heads with humility and those women in their new found faith should not usurp their new freedom. That was the point.

This does not disallow women elders or women apostles (Junia).

You may have heard but there are CEO's of corporations, prime ministers of countries, and yes its true, women can actually vote now.

Also, blacks are no longer slaves.

And women are not treated as untrustworthy and lowly as they were 2000 years ago.

You're not flowing with the Spirit and the Word.

You'll be judged by God for this absolutely!

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 01:22 PM

Furthermore, what are the qualifications for an apostle...
Dean it is a blessing to see another stand on sound doctrine, precept upon precept, rightly dividing the word of truth! Some of this I consider milk, and wonder if Paul would admonish us as in his letter to the churches of Galicia.
Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth…

EasyYoke

3rd September 2006, 01:24 PM

Just because something happens does not make it indented and desirable. Actually the nation of Israel was punished with women leaders that cause the nation to err:

Isaiah 3
12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

I think that is piggish comment towards women. I am glad for certainly God will judge you for this.

Having a women in a role here or there in a major position is not women ruling over men.

Men are still ruling as the majority in such positions.

Don't take the downtrodden woman of 2000 years ago in perpetuity who had no respect and thus not accepted as Elders, though there was one woman Apostle by name (Junia).

You may have heard, women can vote now.

EasyYoke

3rd September 2006, 01:28 PM

This is Christendom's impact on Christianity, this abusiveness towards women. The Roman Church will be destroyed for this male-centric attitude.

Maybe there would be less pedophiles pastors if there were more women in leadership roles.

It's all quite a fraud.

I am glad God says the Church is like a little flock and sojourners instead. It's not piggish that way.

arunma

3rd September 2006, 01:41 PM

But in all fairness, all he did was quote Scripture (relevantly, I think). Though Isaiah (the Prophet, not the poster) is giving his opinion, we must remember that he writes by divine inspiration. I realize that different Christians have different understandings of divine inspiration. But whatever that means to you, surely the writings of Isaiah must carry some doctrinal weight. Should they not?

I think you may misunderstand the position of most orthodox Christians. By and large, we have no problems with women in secular authority. I've voted for women in various elections in the past. A woman could be, say, a university president or a corporate executive. The Scripture is quite clear that the restrictions on female authority are limited to the church. The Prophet Isaiah criticized Israel's female leaders because Israel was a theocracy, and the Old Testament equivalent of the church. So women's suffrage is not an issue in Christianity (except perhaps for its relevance as a social justice issue).

It isn't just an issue in "Christendom." As far as I know, the indiginous churches in Egypt, Ethiopia, and India do not have female pastors either.

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

Can females not be pedophiles as well? After all, we are all quite familiar with the case of the female teacher who seduces the much younger student. It seems to me that both genders have a problem with the sin of pedophilia.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 01:43 PM

It is not a mater of one being right and the other wrong, it is about God being right, and us having a full understanding of it. If its his truth we seek to understand and live, we must be willing to hear others on the matter with an open heart.

I do not see the verse as vague or nebulous. It says what it says. That and it is supported by a pattern thought out the bible as to the equal and harmonious roles of men an women.

When we disturb the pattern God has set out for us, there is cause and affect through out scripture:

How is the husband of a women pastor supposed to be the spiritual leaders in the home when his wife is his spiritual leader in the church?

This is just one example. There are many doctrinal implications to women pastors; this is why Paul explicitly told Timothy what he did.
I understand and respect that, Isaiah53, but it's still open to interpretation beyond the one that simply takes the verse at literal value.
Ringo

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 01:44 PM

No not just a verse, but a pattern through out the bible from cover to cover. That and it's also in man's law and the natural law.
A pattern? That's true. A pattern of first Century thought that subjugated women and forced them to be unequal to men.
Ringo

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 02:03 PM

Women not being able to be pastors, is no more unfair then men not being able to have children. Thou we can understand the natural laws of biology that make men and women different yet equal and compatible, we get confused when God does the same in his word.

It is a fallacy that I must be able to do all the things she does, and vise versa. That is the biggest lie Satan is whispering in the ears of man! It makes un-content with our natural roles, and our society is mess because of it.

Also, I am not pigfish towards women; in fact I meditate on Ephesians 5:25 daily:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Yes, God has, is, and will judge me. I too can say as Paul did in Romans 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Eve the mother of all humanity, Sarah the mother if Isaac, Mary the mother of Jesus my LORD and savior. WOW! God has certainly used women in some important ways, they should not be downtrodden, and are very well respected by me and the men of my local assembly.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 02:25 PM

A pattern? That's true. A pattern of first Century thought that subjugated women and forced them to be unequal to men.
I struggled with this for a long time before I was saved. I thought how sexist God, the Bible, and their followers are!

But with study and prayer I realized it is not only a logical fallacy that: roles have to be the same to be equal, but I believe a lie from the ruler of deceit himself!

What if the sun thought to become the moon?
What if winter wanted to serve the role of summer?
If any of this were possible we’d know bad things would happen.

If you think God and his word depicts women as unequal to men I would ask you to consider:
- it is was a women that mothered mankind
- it was a woman that bore our Savior
- it is women that men are supposed to give their lives for as Christ did for the church
- it was women that stayed behind while men died in battle
- etc.

When we change our roles we no longer serve our intended purpose.

*EDIT* fixed type-o

christian73

3rd September 2006, 02:35 PM

christian73

3rd September 2006, 02:38 PM

Thanks for the post, and I agree with your views on deacons and pastors.

The Bible does not say that children (say 12 years old) can't teach (in the church, over men) too but no one is arguing the matter. Why? Because it does not follow the pattern. But I would reminded them that there is at lease one example if this happening. Jesus himself. With bad doctrine some my take Jesus act and started ordaining children.

The Bible does not say women can teach (in the church, over men), nor are there examples of them doing so. Reason is, its does not follow the pattern.
Can you show me a passage that says that women can't teach?

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 02:45 PM

Can you show me a passage that says that women can't teach?
No, because actualy women can teach. Here is my favorate verse on the subject:

Titus 2:3-5
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.

christian73

3rd September 2006, 03:01 PM

Titus 2:3-5
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.

I like that quote. I'll have to write that down. :clap:

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 03:15 PM

No, because actualy women can teach. Here is my favorate verse on the subject:

Titus 2:3-5
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.
And is a preacher not, in a sense, a teacher? He teaches his congregation lessons from the Bible. So really, a woman could be a pastor - a teacher - because the Bible doesn't forbid it!
Ringo

christian73

3rd September 2006, 03:22 PM

And is a preacher not, in a sense, a teacher? He teaches his congregation lessons from the Bible. So really, a woman could be a pastor - a teacher - because the Bible doesn't forbid it!
Ringo
Yes, but preachers have to be ordained, and teachers don't. And 1 Timothy 3 clearly states that men are to be ordained, not women. See my post above.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 03:23 PM

I struggled with this for a long time before I was saved. I thought how sexist God, the Bible, and their followers are!

But with study and prayer I realized it is not only a logical fancily that: roles have to be the same to be equal, but I believe a lie from the ruler of deceit himself!

What if the sun thought to become the moon?
What if winter wanted to serve the role of summer?
If any of this were possible we’d know bad things would happen.

If you think God and his word depicts women as unequal to men I would ask you to consider:
- it is was a women that mothered mankind
- it was a woman that bore our Savior
- it is women that men are supposed to give their lives for as Christ did for the church
- it was women that stayed behind while men died in battle
- etc.

When we change our roles we no longer serve our intended purpose.
I think you mean fallacy. I'm not trying to be smart, but I thought that's what you meant in your second sentence.

The thing about "roles" is that a "role", whether real or imagined, doesn't have to define your life. That's the difference between an inanimate object (like a moon) and a human being is that a human being can have many roles. For instance: I'm a student, but I'm also a son. And a programmer. I wear several hats, but they don't all have to define me. The same is true of women.

The moon couldn't be the sun because it doesn't have the capability to act like the sun. Our sun is essentially a ball of extremely hot gases, while the moon is a solid orbital body (though the sun may be solid too. I'm not sure). I'd be like using a television to take a shower.

Women aren't like that. Many of them have the intelligence, the will, the faith, and the leadership to pastor a church just as men do.

Now, of course, there are aspects of gender that can't translate from one to the other. Men, for example, can't have babies.
Ringo

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 03:25 PM

Yes, but preachers have to be ordained, and teachers don't. And 1 Timothy 3 clearly states that men are to be ordained, not women. See my post above.
Well, first of all, that verse does not "clearly" say anything about women. It's actually quite vague about women's roles.

Secondly, it's true that you don't have to be ordained to teach, but my point was that a pastor is really just a glorified teacher, when you come right down to it. Therefore, if women can be teachers, and pastors are essentially teachers, then women can be pastors. It seems logical.
Ringo

christian73

3rd September 2006, 03:29 PM

Well, first of all, that verse does not "clearly" say anything about women. It's actually quite vague about women's roles.

Secondly, it's true that you don't have to be ordained to teach, but my point was that a pastor is really just a glorified teacher, when you come right down to it. Therefore, if women can be teachers, and pastors are essentially teachers, then women can be pastors. It seems logical.
Ringo
But pastors have to be ordained. And women can't be ordained. It's clearly stated.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 03:32 PM

And is a preacher not, in a sense, a teacher? He teaches his congregation lessons from the Bible. So really, a woman could be a pastor - a teacher - because the Bible doesn't forbid it!
Ringo

No. A preacher is not a teacher, thou one might be both. Consider the scripture:

Matthew 11:1
And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

Acts 5:42
And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Acts 15:35
Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Acts 28:31
Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

That and even the role of the teacher is specific in regards to gender (what we are discussing).

FYI: I get after my pastor when in the service he starts to teach and not preach!

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 03:42 PM

The thing about "roles" is that a "role", whether real or imagined, doesn't have to define your life.
Thanks for the type-o catch. Word can switch words on you, and you have to re-read closely :D

There is not much more I can say to you on the subject. I have tried to convey concepts to you that you’re not grasping.

Perhaps when you are married and have children of your own you better understand the wisdom of God's purpose for making men and women the way we are and our intended purpose.

Thanks for the civil conversation, and God Bless.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 03:43 PM

Well, first of all, that verse does not "clearly" say anything about...It's actually quite vague about...it's true that you don't have to...is really just...when you come right down to it. Therefore, if...are essentially...then...It seems logical.
Ringo
This line of thinking is how I rationalize 99.9% of the sin in my life :cry:

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 03:55 PM

But pastors have to be ordained. And women can't be ordained. It's clearly stated.
No it's not.
Ringo

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 04:04 PM

Thanks for the type-o catch. Word can switch words on you, and you have to re-read closely

Is that in reference to "fallacy", or some comment about my assertions concerning roles?

There is not much more I can say to you on the subject. I have tried to convey concepts to you that you’re not grasping.

Perhaps when you are married and have children of your own you better understand the wisdom of God's purpose for making men and women the way we are and our intended purpose.

It's not that I haven't grasped them. I haven't agreed with them. You are all pushing this one verse as though it alone is the "smoking gun" that proves women can't be ordained. It's not. Your reasoning on that verse is like saying that women aren't included when the Constitution says, "all men are created equal". "But it doesn't explicitly say 'women', so therefore, they aren't equal!" It's bad reasoning.

This line of thinking is how I rationalize 99.9% of the sin in my life

Which line of reasoning is that?

Thanks for the civil conversation, and God Bless.

Well, yeah. You too. I take that to mean that this debate has ended in a draw?
Ringo

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 04:35 PM

Goodness! Isn't that a rather large font size and spacing? Wouldn't caps be better? :scratch:

JacobHall86

3rd September 2006, 05:24 PM

Doesn't say that blacks can be ordained. Does that mean that they can't be ordained? No, it means that they weren't explicitly mentioned. So what? It seems strange to base almost one's entire belief about this subject on the strict interpretation of one verse.
Ringo

The Bible also doesnt tell blacks to keep quiet and receieve instruction in submission in church either.

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 06:02 PM

Sheesh! It's starting to sound like some New Age Christianized Planned Parenthood Master Race philosophy debate class around here. Is it possible to find some better examples to use?

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 06:32 PM

Goodness! Isn't that a rather large font size and spacing? Wouldn't caps be better? :scratch:
Who? Me?
Ringo

christian73

3rd September 2006, 06:33 PM

No it's not.
Ringo
Read the whole chapter. It's there in black and white.

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 06:36 PM

Is that in reference to "fallacy"
Yes. Fixing the type-o made for better communication. Thanks again.
It's not that I haven't grasped them. I haven't agreed with them.
Sorry for the assumption. I saw that you were 22 and figured you were not married with children yet. Again I apologize.
You are all pushing this one verse as though it alone is the "smoking gun" that proves women can't be ordained.
I was not pushing one verse. Perhaps you have me mistaken for someone else? What did present is that the entire Bible show's a pattern as to the role of men and women while displacing the logical fallacy that things must be the same to be equal.
I take that to mean that this debate has ended in a draw?
If you mistaken our conversation as debate I apologies. You were asking about the scripture as to women ordination and I was teaching you.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 06:37 PM

Read the whole chapter. It's there in black and white.
"Black and white" is right. I suppose that you would also say that women aren't included in the phrase "all men are created equal" because it doesn't specifically say "women".

I'm not trying to flame you. I'm making an important point. The logic is same in both cases.
Ringo

53Isaiah

3rd September 2006, 06:39 PM

The Bible also doesnt tell blacks to keep quiet and receieve instruction in submission in church either.
Good point, hence my teaching on what is Biblical, un-Biblical, and non- Biblical.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 06:42 PM

Yes. Fixing the type-o made for better communication. Thanks again.

I have to apologize, Isaiah. I thought you were being sarcastic. Sorry for misreading you. No problem, by the way. Type-os happen.

Sorry for the assumption. I saw that you were 22 and figured you were not married with children yet. Again I apologize.

No, not married. Pretty far off from being married (financially, psychologically, etc). But no need to apologize.

I was not pushing one verse. Perhaps you have me mistaken for someone else? What did present is that the entire Bible show's a pattern as to the role of men and women while displacing the logical fallacy that things must be the same to be equal.

Sorry. What I meant to say (but maybe didn't express that well) was that just recently (like, yesterday and today), it seems like everything's been about that one verse - "husband of one wife". That's not your fault. The conversation just sort of evolved to that point, I guess.

If you mistaken our conversation as debate I apologies. You were asking about the scripture as to women ordination and I was teaching you.

Well, maybe 'debate' is too strong a word; it implies a fight or an argument. Maybe a 'heated discussion' is a better word.

You know what, Isaiah? I'm gonna bless you because you're honestly one of the most agreeable people I've ever debated with online. Thanks for not acting like a jerk.
Ringo

christian73

3rd September 2006, 06:50 PM

"Black and white" is right. I suppose that you would also say that women aren't included in the phrase "all men are created equal" because it doesn't specifically say "women".

I'm not trying to flame you. I'm making an important point. The logic is same in both cases.
Ringo
I see your point. But then tell me why does it say that "A deacon must be the husband of one wife and must manage his children and his houshold well." (1 Timothy 3:12 NIV)

And tell me why, in the previous verse, it says, "In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temporate and trustworthy in everything" (1 Timothy 3:11 NIV).

Are you saying that the words highlighted could refer to men? This is pretty plan. Their roles may be vague, but these verse still refer to women.

By the way, ringo, you're not flaming me by any means. If you read my "Apology" thread, you'll know I learned my lesson about that. :)

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 07:47 PM

But then tell me why does it say that "A deacon must be the husband of one wife and must manage his children and his houshold well." (1 Timothy 3:12 NIV)

And tell me why, in the previous verse, it says, "In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temporate and trustworthy in everything" (1 Timothy 3:11 NIV).

Are you saying that the words highlighted could refer to men? This is pretty plan. Their roles may be vague, but these verse still refer to women.

Thanks. No, my point is: saying that the pastorate only applies to men because of the verse "...must be the husband of one wife.." is bad reasoning .

But I'm glad you mentioned that previous verse, because I don't really see anything there that would forbid women from preaching, honestly.

By the way, ringo, you're not flaming me by any means. If you read my "Apology" thread, you'll know I learned my lesson about that. :)

I just didn't want my post to be taken the wrong way. I've been mildly called down for moderate flaming myself. It's probably an artifact from my time on the ICQ Christianity board.
Ringo

christian73

3rd September 2006, 09:36 PM

Thanks. No, my point is: saying that the pastorate only applies to men because of the verse "...must be the husband of one wife.." is bad reasoning .

How so? I realize that verse 12 is controversial within itself, but when it says "the husband of one wife", husband obviously refers to a man, and wife refers to a woman. If it's that clear, how can it be bad reasoning?
But I'm glad you mentioned that previous verse, because I don't really see anything there that would forbid women from preaching, honestly.

Since verse 12 refers to deacons, let's go a little farther back and look at verse 2, which speaks of the qualifications of the overseer:

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2 NIV)

Verse 12 and verse 2 say the same thing, but verse 2 specifically refers to the qualification of the overseer, which we both know refers to preacher, or elder. Again, husband refers to a man, and wife refers to a woman.
That's pretty clear to me.

I just didn't want my post to be taken the wrong way. I've been mildly called down for moderate flaming myself. It's probably an artifact from my time on the ICQ Christianity board.
Ringo

No harm done. It's easy to get carried away when you're in a debate.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 09:46 PM

How so? I realize that verse 12 is controversial within itself, but when it says "the husband of one wife", husband obviously refers to a man, and wife refers to a woman. If it's that clear, how can it be bad reasoning?

Since verse 12 refers to deacons, let's go a little farther back and look at verse 2, which speaks of the qualifications of the overseer:

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2 NIV)

Verse 12 and verse 2 say the same thing, but verse 2 specifically refers to the qualification of the overseer, which we both know refers to preacher, or elder. Again, husband refers to a man, and wife refers to a woman.
That's pretty clear to me.

No harm done. It's easy to get carried away when you're in a debate.
How so? I realize that verse 12 is controversial within itself, but when it says "the husband of one wife", husband obviously refers to a man, and wife refers to a woman. If it's that clear, how can it be bad reasoning?

Two reasons:
1. The literal interpretation of a verse doesn't always make sense,
2. Just because that verse says 'husband of one wife' doesn't bar women at all. I thought we covered that in the last round of posts.

Since verse 12 refers to deacons, let's go a little farther back and look at verse 2, which speaks of the qualifications of the overseer:

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2 NIV)

Verse 12 and verse 2 say the same thing, but verse 2 specifically refers to the qualification of the overseer, which we both know refers to preacher, or elder. Again, husband refers to a man, and wife refers to a woman.
That's pretty clear to me.

Again, refer to my previous post.

No harm done. It's easy to get carried away when you're in a debate.

Yeah, this tends to be a hot issue.
Ringo

christian73

3rd September 2006, 09:52 PM

Just because that verse says 'husband of one wife' doesn't bar women at all. I thought we covered that in the last round of posts.

On what basis? If you can't take the words husband and wife literally, how else can you read that?

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 11:04 PM

On what basis? If you can't take the words husband and wife literally, how else can you read that?
For the same reason that I gave you two posts ago!

Would you look at the Constitution, which says "all men are created equal" and say, "well, that literally means that women or blacks or anyone else aren't equal?" Because that's what you're doing with this verse. It's the exact same logic.
Ringo

Flynmonkie

3rd September 2006, 11:17 PM

For the same reason that I gave you two posts ago!

Would you look at the Constitution, which says "all men are created equal" and say, "well, that literally means that women or blacks or anyone else aren't equal?" Because that's what you're doing with this verse. It's the exact same logic.
Ringo

Ringo, I hate to interrupt here... but..

All men are not created equal in that sense. If you think about it, a blind man is treated differently, etc.. So we are not equal. However, how God handles us is.

These are very bad analogies.. :sigh:

Ok, I suggest each verse in the passage be studied word for word, what does each word mean in and of itself. This should leave you with unanswered questions. Then you will have to move on to verses that should take priority over these. Why, you will ask and then is where you realize this was directed to Timothy, for those issues he had in his church. This makes sense why? Because factually, there are women out there that God has lifted up to lead. We cannot deny it if it is happening, if it is good, we know it is from God. What is more important, your interpretation of this verse, or the positive furthing of the gospel. What harm can it do to view it otherwise? Does it hurt anyone? How? These are the questions you should be asking. If this is not how it is done in your church, then so be it, but to set a mandate and say God said, is an entirely different thing.

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 11:27 PM

equating the bible with the u.s. constitution. WoW! :scratch:

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 11:29 PM

All men are not created equal in that sense. If you think about it, a blind man is treated differently, etc.. So we are not equal. However, how God handles us is.

Uh... whut? We're equal under the Constitution.

These are very bad analogies.. :sigh:

Actually, they're not. I think they're very good analogies. It's the same kind of literalism.

Ok, I suggest each verse in the passage be studied word for word, what does each word mean in and of itself. This should leave you with unanswered questions. Then you will have to move on to verses that should take priority over these. Why, you will ask and then is where you realize this was directed to Timothy, for those issues he had in his church. This makes sense why? Because factually, there are women out there that God has lifted up to lead. We cannot deny it if it is happening, if it is good, we know it is from God. What is more important, your interpretation of this verse, or the positive furthing of the gospel. What harm can it do to view it otherwise? Does it hurt anyone? How? These are the questions you should be asking. If this is not how it is done in your church, then so be it, but to set a mandate and say God said, is an entirely different thing.

Look, here's my point: if we looked at the Constitution the same way you're looking at this verse - "it's literal! It means what it says!" - you could conclude that women aren't equal to men. After all, it says "all men are created equal". Or you could conclude that African Americans aren't equal. After all, it doesn't include African Americans.

I'm not advocating that viewpoint, obviously, and I'm not saying that you are either. but that literalism is misguided and wrong. Under the Constitution, we are all equal. Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say "all women" or "all African Americans" doesn't mean that they're not equal.
Ringo

DeaconDean

3rd September 2006, 11:30 PM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them alone.

Ringo84, I can appreciate your zeal. Sometimes its a good thing. But not in this case. As I have shown from scripture, many others have also. You have already stated that in the days the scripture was written that women were held as a lower class citizen and we should remember that. And most of us do. But the fact remains that God has said He does not change. And since we have the Bible as His words to mankind, we must logically conclude that His words do not change either. The shear fact that the Bible has stood for what, 5000 years should be proof alone to this fact. God stated the roles of men and women. We cannot change that. God has given us His words through the prophets and apostles, not to mention His Son. And I believe it is John the Revelator who penned these words from the Lord:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." -Rev. 22:18-19

Now I know this is from Revelation, but the fact remains:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -2 Tim. 3:16-17

Now whether it is scripture from Genesis or Revelation, it says that it is suitable for doctrine. The doctrine of men as bishops/elders is scriptural. I know and realize that is viewpoint is not popular today, but regardless of what I say or what you say, what does the Bible say!

Now if you want to "take away" from the scriptures meaning and "add unto"the scriptures anything to which it does not say, God is going to hold you accountable. I'd rather err on the side of scriptures than to err on the side of man.

We let a woman lead man once and it cost us Paradise. No offense ladies. I know there are some honest to goodness God-fearing, Jesus believing ladies here. And I thank God for each and every one of you. But the fact remains, God ordained the priesthood for men in Ex. 28:1 to Aaron and his sons. Not Aaron and his daughters. It was made a perpetual ordinance in Ex. 29:9. And Paul reiterated this in 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6. We cannot go against His word.

I may be in the minority here, but I personally will not teach or preach except that which is in the scriptures. I personally, will not compromise His word for anybody. That is just how strongly I feel about God's word. Now you are free to believe as you will, but we have showed from scriptures what it says and you still refuse to believe. So I will not argue any more. You don't believe what the scriptures say. So I have no choice but to do as the Bible says:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet...For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." -Matt. 10:14,20.

And in another place:

"And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." -Lk. 9:5

I'm sorry if this offends you. I'm sorry if this has offended anyone who has posted here. But that is what the Bible says.

Ladies and gentlemen, if my opinions have offended anyone, if the scriptural truths I have strove to share offend, please let me know and I'll be more than glad to post an apology. But I will not compromise God's word. Period, end of statement.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 11:30 PM

Wow... you really don't get my point, do you? What am I going to have to do, draw a picture?

I mean, not to be smart, but seriously! How more plain could I be?
Ringo

Ringo84

3rd September 2006, 11:32 PM

DeaconDean, you know I respect your opinion, but you're avoiding the issue here. By that I mean that you're avoiding the analogy I made several posts ago.

I've already said my piece about Biblical inspiration and value. What you're saying isn't necessarily wrong or bad - it just avoids the current issue, that's all.
Ringo

DeaconDean

3rd September 2006, 11:53 PM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them alone.

No I'm not missing the issue. It is still about what do the scriptures say about it.

In seminary school we were taught that context of scriptures determine the interpretation. If the scriptures context are literal, then they are to be taken literally. And the whole of this thread is about women being ordained as pastors. Scriptures do not support it in no way shape or form. And that, my friend, is the crux of it all. And since you do not believe that "the husband of one wife" means just that, what else am I to think. You should take the time and re-read my posts and look in your Bible at the scriptures I provided. And you should pray for the Holy Spirits guidance in this area. I have stated my position. I've provided scriptural proof of my position also. And yet you still do not believe the word. Jesus said:

"...if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." -John 15:20

Jesus even taught in the lesson from Luke 16 this little fact:

"Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Lk. 16:29

I have shown you what Moses said, now "hear them."

I have scriptural proofs for my position.

Since it is obvious that you don't believe what scripture says, I'm not going to argue anymore with you personally. I'm even going to be big enough to say God Bless you in your convictions. But I don't have to support them.

I'm outta here!

May God bless each one of you richly.

Till all are one!

Ringo84

4th September 2006, 12:00 AM

If the scriptures context are literal, then they are to be taken literally. And the whole of this thread is about women being ordained as pastors. Scriptures do not support it in no way shape or form. And that, my friend, is the crux of it all. And since you do not believe that "the husband of one wife" means just that, what else am I to think. You should take the time and re-read my posts and look in your Bible at the scriptures I provided. And you should pray for the Holy Spirits guidance in this area. I have stated my position. I've provided scriptural proof of my position also. And yet you still do not believe the word. Jesus said:

I've made my position clear also. Not only does the literal interpretation make no sense, but it's bad logic also.

Since it is obvious that you don't believe what scripture says, I'm not going to argue anymore with you personally. I'm even going to be big enough to say God Bless you in your convictions. But I don't have to support them.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said it.

You know, just because you run away without addressing my latest point doesn't mean that you're right or that you proved anything.
Ringo

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 12:24 AM

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have written.
Please re-read post #265 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26423829&postcount=265).

Flynmonkie

4th September 2006, 12:26 AM

Uh... whut? We're equal under the Constitution.

Actually, they're not. I think they're very good analogies. It's the same kind of literalism.

Look, here's my point: if we looked at the Constitution the same way you're looking at this verse - "it's literal! It means what it says!" - you could conclude that women aren't equal to men. After all, it says "all men are created equal". Or you could conclude that African Americans aren't equal. After all, it doesn't include African Americans.

I'm not advocating that viewpoint, obviously, and I'm not saying that you are either. but that literalism is misguided and wrong. Under the Constitution, we are all equal. Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say "all women" or "all African Americans" doesn't mean that they're not equal.
Ringo
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

Ringo, take a deep breath buddy! :) I agree with you remember? Also, way back on post 265 Hypo agreed with you too, pointing to explicit translation and why -- and you shot him down too! ;)

You are right. Poor thing!:hug:

I just pointed out the constitution issue to you, I should have been more specific the entire post was not directed toward you, but a general statement about discernment of these verses. (I am such a lazy writer!)

Ringo84

4th September 2006, 12:57 AM

Ringo, take a deep breath buddy! :) I agree with you remember? Also, way back on post 265 Hypo agreed with you too, pointing to explicit translation and why -- and you shot him down too! ;)

You are right. Poor thing!:hug:

I just pointed out the constitution issue to you, I should have been more specific the entire post was not directed toward you, but a general statement about discernment of these verses. (I am such a lazy writer!)
Oh wait a minute.... you're the person who sent me a private message.

Well gee.. now that I feel properly (and rightfully) foolish: sorry, Flyn.
What an idiot (me).
Ringo

Ringo84

4th September 2006, 12:59 AM

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have written.
Please re-read post #265 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26423829&postcount=265).
I don't think so. You obviously misunderstand what I'm saying, or you wouldn't have suggested that I was comparing the Constitution to the Bible.

No no.... I'm comparing interpretation of the Constitution to your interpretation of that Bible verse.
Ringo

DeaconDean

4th September 2006, 01:03 AM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herin are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. They are mine and mine alone. I bear the fulll weight of them alone.

Since I was chastened for my statement here:

Since it is obvious that you don't believe what scripture says,

I wanted to show how I came to this conclusion.

It's God's word that was written by man. And man has a tendency to add their own biases, cultural habits, etc into their writing.

Let's not get into the biblical inerrancy issue. Suffice it to say that I believe that the Bible's God's word but that it was written by man - as I said above.

I believe it was Peter who said:

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -2 Pet. 1:21

If the Holy Spirit didn't guide the writers of the Bible to truth, then the Bible is in error and should be thrown out as trash. If these men of God added their own personal bias' to the scriptures, then they are not the word of God.

You said further:

Inspired? Yes. God-breathed? Not so much. The Bible was inspired by God, certainly, but was written by men with human fraity. That means that cultural and personal bias had the possibility to bleed through to the Bible.

Paul was the bigest persecuter of Gentiles in the N.T. until Jesus transformed him. Did Paul let his cultural bias' to "bleed through" into his writtings?

You also said:

We're arguing semantics; splitting hairs. It's a red herring. Deacons are leaders of the church and that's that. No, they aren't ordained. But they are as much leaders as the pastor.

I hate to beg to differ, but I'm a Deacon. I was ordained! I had hands laid on me. I had the elders pray over me. I had my head anointed with oil.

You said also:

And I read that the verse about "husband of one wife" had to do with monogamy, not gender roles.

You evidently don't believe that one of the qualifications for a bishop/elder is to be "the husband of one wife." I mean after all, you did say it was about "monogamy."

What does the scriptures say about "bishops/elders?

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." -1 Tim. 3:1-7

In all those scriptures it says man, or the husband of one wife, or he, or even his. It does not say "This is a true saying, If a woman desire the office of a bishop, she desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the wife of one husband, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well her own house, having her children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a woman know not how to rule her own house, how shall she take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride she fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover she must have a good report of them which are without; lest she fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

It does not say that at all. And if you can't believe what it says, then what can I say.

But since I have been chastened for my remarks, I wish to apologize to one and all.

Do not give any weight to my remarks.

I am completely wrong.

I will not post in this thread again.

Since I'm in the minority here, I'll bow out gracfully.

I apologize to anyone who has been offended by my remarks. If you would like, I'll even go back and remove my remarks so as not to offend anyone. Let me know if this what you would like. I will watch this thread for the remainder of the night, if you want my remarks removed, say so and I'll gladly remove them.

Forgive my shortcomings.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Flynmonkie

4th September 2006, 01:08 AM

DD, for what it is worth, you’re not a minority here, it is probably split down the middle at this point amongst Christians, yes, even the Baptists. You have a right to believe what you want to believe, I would never question if you were a Christian or not, as you know I think your a fine one ;) I just disagree with you on this issue. Please, know it does not represent my opinion of you as a whole :)

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 01:12 AM

it is probably split down the middle at this point amongst Christians

It would appear this is the liberal left with all their godless church members, the PP, the media, the humanists, evolutionists and all the rest--this undoubtedly is their ultimate intent-to split us in two. As Abraham Lincoln once said about united and divided...

...........................................:wave:

Ringo84

4th September 2006, 01:16 AM

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herin are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. They are mine and mine alone. I bear the fulll weight of them alone.

Since I was chastened for my statement here:

I wanted to show how I came to this conclusion.

I believe it was Peter who said:

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -2 Pet. 1:21

If the Holy Spirit didn't guide the writers of the Bible to truth, then the Bible is in error and should be thrown out as trash. If these men of God added their own personal bias' to the scriptures, then they are not the word of God.

You said further:

Paul was the bigest persecuter of Gentiles in the N.T. until Jesus transformed him. Did Paul let his cultural bias' to "bleed through" into his writtings?

You also said:

I hate to beg to differ, but I'm a Deacon. I was ordained! I had hands laid on me. I had the elders pray over me. I had my head anointed with oil.

You said also:

You evidently don't believe that one of the qualifications for a bishop/elder is to be "the husband of one wife." I mean after all, you did say it was about "monogamy."

What does the scriptures say about "bishops/elders?

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." -1 Tim. 3:1-7

In all those scriptures it says man, or the husband of one wife, or he, or even his. It does not say "This is a true saying, If a woman desire the office of a bishop, she desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the wife of one husband, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well her own house, having her children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a woman know not how to rule her own house, how shall she take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being l