Women ordained in the Baptist Church

[leytonstones]

I would be interested to know how women came to be ordained into ministry in the Baptist church. I personally think this is unbiblical and would be interested in your views.

[aReformedPatriot]

I would be interested to know how women came to be ordained into ministry in the Baptist church. I personally think this is unbiblical and would be interested in your views.

I agree with you. In my experience, however, I have never encountered an ordained baptist woman.

[DeaconDean]

Oh boy, this is gonna get ugly.

[daveleau]

There are dozens of types of Baptists, from American Baptist to Seventh-Day Baptists to Southern Baptist to Independent Baptist. The majority do not ordain women, although women can serve in any office short of deacon. This is a disputable item in Scripture. Is it specific for the time written or to the church audience, or is it timeless? It is difficult to tell hermeneutically what the author's intent is.

[arunma]

I would be interested to know how women came to be ordained into ministry in the Baptist church. I personally think this is unbiblical and would be interested in your views.

I agree that ordaining women is unbiblical, though it doesn't bother me as much as, say, homosexual pastors. But I've never seen Baptist churches doing this. Of course, we must remember that (at least here in America) Baptist churches exist at all levels on the theological spectrum. Saying that a particular church is Baptist really tells us nothing about that church except that it believes in credobaptism. For example, there's a church on my campus called University Baptist which prominently displays a sign "a liberal church." And then of course there are many fundamentalist Baptist churches out there as well. So it wouldn't surprise me if some of the more liberal Baptist churches do ordain women.

[JacobHall86]

It is more likely to happen in a church that is CBF than any other.

A church that is SBC will not, ordain a woman, or they face being asked to leave the convention.

THere is no instance of a Woman leading any New Testament Church.

[aReformedPatriot]

I agree that ordaining women is unbiblical, though it doesn't bother me as much as, say, homosexual pastors.

Why not? Both are unbiblical and ought to be shunned without compromise by saying "one is better than the other." I don't think you're saying this, but it can be extrapolated from what your saying and does lend a little credance to the other position.

[arunma]

Why not? Both are unbiblical and ought to be shunned without compromise by saying "one is better than the other." I don't think you're saying this, but it can be extrapolated from what your saying and does lend a little credance to the other position.

Well Mark, I certainly don't mean to grant any approval to the practice of female pastors. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if a church does ordain women, I don't immediately declare such a congregation to be apostate and cut off from Christ. To be sure, I believe that they are in error, and ought to conform to Scriptural standards. But it isn't quite the same (at least not to me) as ordaining active homosexuals, which would be tantamount to approval of sin.

[aReformedPatriot]

Well Mark, I certainly don't mean to grant any approval to the practice of female pastors. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if a church does ordain women, I don't immediately declare such a congregation to be apostate and cut off from Christ. To be sure, I believe that they are in error, and ought to conform to Scriptural standards. But it isn't quite the same (at least not to me) as ordaining active homosexuals, which would be tantamount to approval of sin.

I think both are abberations of gender roles. I also think both usurp the authority of the word of God and are therefore both endorsements of sin. While I can certainly understand that in the instance of female leadership there might not be an abandonment of the gospel due to a totally sinful lifestyle, I do think, however, seperation in this instance must occur because of the overstepping of bounds and should last until repentance occurs. An interesting tangent occurs in my mind as I read your post. Are you saying that some "error" (which I call sin in this case) is acceptable due to a certain level of ignorance wherein the gospel is not totally abandoned?

[Cright]

I've never seen an ordaned woman in a Baptist church. I'm in agreement that it's unscriptural.

[leytonstones]

OK, first I would like to say that I asked the question because I genuinely don't understand how women have come to be ordained in the Baptist church. I never intended for this topic to "get ugly" as one poster put it and yes, I have encountered ordained women in the Baptist church here in the UK. In the church I currently attend with my husband there are female deacons and there were female deacons in our previous church also. I don't agree with that either and I certainly didn't vote for them nor would I vote for a female deacon. I really wanted to learn from the origianl question I posted and I hope the discussion will continue.

Blessings:wave:

[Stinker]

I would be interested to know how women came to be ordained into ministry in the Baptist church. I personally think this is unbiblical and would be interested in your views.

I think that in the very near future we will be seeing many women Pastors in all of the Baptist Conferences.

Bible scholars are not being pressured to conform to the position of male dominance in all areas of life regardless of some scriptures teaching otherwise.

Many Bible scholars are now teaching that there was a temporary restriction placed on women teachers just following 1Cor.11:5 to 1Tim.2:11-15. The reason being that the pagan women converting to Jesus were bringing in their pagan teaching in with them, and also their attitude of authority, because in their old pagan religions the women held the authority.

Outside their pagan religions, men held all the power in the society. The women were but property of men. This attitude is revealed even in the New Testament: "But women will be preserved through the bearing of children...." (1Tim.2:15)

The supremacy of men in that place and time is further revealed in 1Tim.3:1-10, 12 where the church offices of Eldership and Deaconship are discussed.

[arunma]

I think both are abberations of gender roles. I also think both usurp the authority of the word of God and are therefore both endorsements of sin. While I can certainly understand that in the instance of female leadership there might not be an abandonment of the gospel due to a totally sinful lifestyle, I do think, however, seperation in this instance must occur because of the overstepping of bounds and should last until repentance occurs. An interesting tangent occurs in my mind as I read your post. Are you saying that some "error" (which I call sin in this case) is acceptable due to a certain level of ignorance wherein the gospel is not totally abandoned?

Always getting down to brass tacks. :)

But I suppose the answer to your question is yes, with qualifications. I wouldn't say that any level of sin is acceptable, because sin must always be unacceptable. But there is also the issue of ignorance, which you mentioned. Without doubt, Christians who approve of female leadership do so because they do not properly understand the Scriptures, otherwise they wouldn't do such a thing. They do not do this with evil intent. This is why I say that I don't consider such Christians to have committed a level of sin that would cut them off from Christ.

Now I have to admit that if a church had a female pastor, I probably wouldn't choose to regularly attend there (so as to show tacit approval for the practice). But I suppose that such a church could still do some service for the cause of the Gospel.

[arunma]

Many Bible scholars are now teaching that there was a temporary restriction placed on women teachers just following 1Cor.11:5 to 1Tim.2:11-15. The reason being that the pagan women converting to Jesus were bringing in their pagan teaching in with them, and also their attitude of authority, because in their old pagan religions the women held the authority.

I don't mean to jump on you or sound hostile. But if I may ask, which Bible scholars make this claim, and what is their basis for doing so? I'm somewhat curious, actually, because I'm not sure how to interpret the verses in question as you have suggested. But I'm certainly open to hearing your thoughts on the issue (and perhaps those of the Bible scholars you have in mind).

[daveleau]

There are dozens of types of Baptists, from American Baptist to Seventh-Day Baptists to Southern Baptist to Independent Baptist. The majority do not ordain women, although women can serve in any office short of deacon. This is a disputable item in Scripture. Is it specific for the time written or to the church audience, or is it timeless? It is difficult to tell hermeneutically what the author's intent is.

To add to my previous statements...
Until there is more revelation, I think we should stick to the conservative assumption that it is applicable to us. But, we should also note that God blesses churches with female pastors, so this is not a death-knell for a church if the church in question takes the stance that ordination of women was a societal-specific, time-limited statement. We are never told ordination of women is an abomination, as others things in Scripture are. I would never support the ordination of any of the 8 things called abominations to God in Scripture, and I think the likening of the ordination of those who commit the abominations to the ordination of women is a large and incorrect leap of logic.

[MrJim]

FWIW:

The American Baptist Church I attend has a member that is an ordained Lay Minister.

During the recent Pastoral Committee Search they announced that they would not be examining anymore women as candidates for the position--and they did have several on their list. (One family left after this was announced and the husband was on the committee.)

They did find a pastor-and he is a dude! But there must be a lot of women pastors in the ABC.

[Ringo84]

Good for them.

It's perfectly Biblical. And you'll excuse me for saying it, but I say that women should be ordained across the board. It's about time that misreading of the Bible to make our society as patriarchal and sexist as Bible culture ended.

The only thing "unbiblical" here is people's opposition to female pastors.
Ringo

[aReformedPatriot]

Good for them.

It's perfectly Biblical. And you'll excuse me for saying it, but I say that women should be ordained across the board. It's about time that misreading of the Bible to make our society as patriarchal and sexist as Bible culture ended.

The only thing "unbiblical" here is people's opposition to female pastors.
Ringo

Since the Apostles wrote in a patriarichal and sexist Bible culture do their writings reflect that?

[GordonSlocum]

I would be interested to know how women came to be ordained into ministry in the Baptist church. I personally think this is unbiblical and would be interested in your views.


I agree with you.

[mont974x4]

Can women preach and teach? Absolutely. Can they be elders or deacons? Nope. So, they can exercise their spiritual gifts they just can not hold a high level of church leadership.

Look at other examples of government in the Bible...such as the family. I am the head of my family as Christ is the head of the church. This doesn't mean my sife is subserviant to me. In fact, wives are partners however the husband is held accountable for the leadership role.

The same can be said of the church. Woman have spiritual gifts and are just as capable to serve God as a man, but the men will be held accountable as the leadership.

[mont974x4]

Any example of women as elders or deacons in the Bible?

[JacobHall86]

Get off yours. The people who wrote it were living in a sexist, chauvinistic time. There's no reason that we need to recreate that society today.



I have no such degree. Do you? It's like you're saying "well, you interp doesn't fit my interp.... therefore, you're wrong". Is your intepretation of the Bible perfect? Neither is mine.

Women should be ordained.
Ringo


No, I dont have a degree in Greek, Yet. Of course I'm not the one questioning the Bible.

Women should not be ordained, and when you can give me one insance of a woman Leading a congregation from the NT you can talk about women being ordained.

[Ringo84]

Of course I'm not the one questioning the Bible.

Questioning the Bible is a healthy thing. I don't apologize for questioning the Bible because it leads to greater faith.

Women should not be ordained, and when you can give me one insance of a woman Leading a congregation from the NT you can talk about women being ordained.

Ancient people didn't attend school. So that must mean that we shouldn't attend school either, right? Ancient people didn't shave their beards, so we shouldn't either, right? That's the same logic.

Women should be ordained.
Ringo

[Project 86]

Questioning the Bible is a healthy thing. I don't apologize for questioning the Bible because it leads to greater faith.

Is this an idea you got out of the Bible? I certainly see the disciples and Jesus quote a lot from the Bible. I never read about them questioning it. In fact with all the quoting they did it would be hard to imagine that they would think it was something to be questioned.

[JacobHall86]

Ancient people didn't attend school. So that must mean that we shouldn't attend school either, right? Ancient people didn't shave their beards, so we shouldn't either, right? That's the same logic.

Women should be ordained.
Ringo

Wrong.

Ancient People did attend School.
Ancient People did shave their beards.

Women should not be ordained.

[mont974x4]

Questioning the Bible is a healthy thing. I don't apologize for questioning the Bible because it leads to greater faith.



Ancient people didn't attend school. So that must mean that we shouldn't attend school either, right? Ancient people didn't shave their beards, so we shouldn't either, right? That's the same logic.

Women should be ordained.
Ringo


How and what we question does matter.

And actually, they did have schools in ancient times. Even Paul went off to study for a time. Altho, the actual ordination process might not have existed or was at least quite diferent than what we have today. Remember the disciples were not school trained evangelists but were trained in a mentorship.

Yes, God has, and does, use women in mighty ways, but there is no example of women in that type of leadership role. It isn't sexist, it is God's design.

[Project 86]

Ancient people didn't attend school. So that must mean that we shouldn't attend school either, right? Ancient people didn't shave their beards, so we shouldn't either, right? That's the same logic.
Women should be ordained.


This isn't about what the culture is like now and what it was like then. The Bible is true for any society and God's truth is never changing. God has told us that one of the qualifications to being a pastor is that they be the husband of one wife. That is hard to do unless you a lesbian and in that case you living in sin and are not meeting a different requirement of being a pastor. Of course in God's eyes the marriage between two women wouldn't even be marriage at all.

[Ringo84]

Did they? That still doesn't disprove the logic there. 'Well, ancient people didn't do it, so neither should we'. That's awful logic.

I might be wrong about schools and shaving beards. Probably am. That doesn't make your invalid argument any less invalid. Sorry.

No, there's nothing wrong with women being ordained. No, it's not "unbiblical". Women should be ordained.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

No, I didn't get it from the Bible, but that doesn't make it "evil" or bad. I'd much rather question the Bible and in so doing, learn from it than simply accept what it says blindly.

I'm not saying that that's what you're doing. I'm just saying that simply accepting the Bible "as is" without questioning it and thinking about it is, in my opinion, weak faith.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

OK, show us in the Bible.

[Ringo84]

Show you what? About questioning? It's not in the Bible.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Did they? That still doesn't disprove the logic there. 'Well, ancient people didn't do it, so neither should we'. That's awful logic.

I might be wrong about schools and shaving beards. Probably am. That doesn't make your invalid argument any less invalid. Sorry.

No, there's nothing wrong with women being ordained. No, it's not "unbiblical". Women should be ordained.
Ringo

Ok Ringo, show me in the Bible where women were pastors and leading churches and ordained. Otherwise doing so is unBiblical.

[Ringo84]

What if they weren't? That doesn't mean they can't be pastors. Blacks may not have been ordained either (I'm not sure about that, but I'm using it as an example), but that doesn't mean they can't be pastors.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

What if they weren't? That doesn't mean they can't be pastors. Blacks may not have been ordained either (I'm not sure about that, but I'm using it as an example), but that doesn't mean they can't be pastors.
Ringo


YOu are right, simply because blacks were not mentioned as pastors in the Bible doenst mean they cant be pastors, of Course the Bible also doesnt say that Blacks are not to be pastors, as it does for women.

Your point fails.

[DeaconDean]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not the opinions of all Baptists, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of my opinions.

The tradition of the Southern Baptist Convention is one where there is strict refusal to compromise the word of God otherwise know to us as the Bible. Here is an example of the timeless message of the Bible:

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" - 1 Cor.1:1-2

notice the second verse well. Paul said: "...to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,." Are we not sanctified in Jesus Christ? Are we not with them "in every place" that "call upon the name of Jesus Christ?" Paul's words to the Corinthians were just as much in effect then as they are today. Paul's message didn't end when Corinth went to the wayside, it still is the living word of God and as a result, the meaning and context did not end nor did it change or cease to exist. God's word never dies. It lives as much today as it did when Paul wrote it. We are to be considered in the group with those at Corinth the same as if we were alive and there in the flesh with them. I don't care which version of the Bible you use, but we must accept one thing above all things when talking about His word. The Bible is His word! It isn't our word, it's HIS! True the prophets and the apostles wrote as the Spirit inspired them. But one thing comes up about God and His word if you truly believe in His word:

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

God is timeless. Did God change from the time it took to pass from Adam's time to Noah's? No He did not. Did God change from the time of Abraham until the time of Christ? No He didn't. Did God change between the time of Christ to now? No He did not. If God being timeless, and also being changeless, how can God's word change? Wouldn't that be a defect in God's character? The Bible says this:

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." -Jas. 1:8

God is not double minded! Therefore God can not be unstable! One thing we have is the fact that God is:

"Jesus Christ (God) the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." -Heb. 13:8

He always was, He always is, and He always will be the same. The same principle applies to His word. The message was the same in Abraham's day, and it is still the same today, it does not change. So when the Bible says "...the husband of one wife" you can take it to the bank that that is exactly what it means. You can argue about Miriam. But there is no presidence in giving her the weight of a priest. True she did minister unto the women of the wandering tribes of Isreal, but there is no backing of her ministering in the role of priest to the men of Israel. If she did, it would have put her on equal ground with Moses and Aaron. And there is no recording of that in the books of the law.

One could argue for Deborah. She was judge. (Jud. 4:4) But there is a difference between a judge and a priest. While she was a judge, and men had to abide by her rulings, she herself was still liable to the high priest. She wasn't exempt.

One could argue for Esther. But that wouldn't hold either. She was a Queen in Israel (Est. 2:1-23) but there is a difference between a queen and a priest. She fell under the same rules Miriam and Deborah did.

So where in the Bible did set forth the example of a woman ministering as a priest to men? There is no example. Plain and simple friends. The ministry was set apart for men by God:

"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

The priesthood was ordained by God for Aaron and his sons, not Aaron and his daughters. This principle stood until the time of the supreme High Priest Jesus Christ. So when Paul wrote to Timothy that bishops/elders should be "the husband of one wife" bishops and elders are to be men. It's not a sexist thing, we don't regulate women as second class citizens. It's a Bible thing. What does God say on the subject? It is His word that matters, not ours. And since God does not change, His word does not change. It still means "the husband of one wife." And friends, regardless of popular opinion, that is one thing women cannot be: "the husband of one wife."

It is principle I live by. God's word the same as Him, unchangable! I will not compromise His word for you, the pastor of my church, not anybody! If you compromise His word, then you'll compromise Him in my opinion. So I'm saying: "I'm standing on the promises of God."

God Bless.

Till all are one.

[mont974x4]

The Bible is our foundation, if we start picking and choosing what we believe then we tread on thin ice.

What I was asking for was a biblical example of women in leadership in the NT church. Keep in mind in 1 Tim 2 women are denied authority over a man. Allowing a woman to be in leadership in a church would give her authority over a man.

[Ringo84]

YOu are right, simply because blacks were not mentioned as pastors in the Bible doenst mean they cant be pastors,

I think you just made my point for me, JacobHall. Thanks.

of Course the Bible also doesnt say that Blacks are not to be pastors, as it does for women.

You mean the Bible contains the opinions of those who lived in a patriarchal society.

I predict that you'll say that Biblical society doesn't matter. I think it does. What we write about in these forums is very much influenced by the times in which we live. As for opinion versus what God intended to be written down: that's a bigger, more complex issue.

But the Bible does condone slavery, it condones stoning children - a lot of things that we don't do today. I'm not so sure that following the hard-and-fast rule "what they did we'll do and what they didn't do we won't do" is so swift. I'm not saying that that's your philosophy about theology. But what kinds of things would we be doing if we looked at things in the Bible that way?

See what I mean?
Ringo

[Ringo84]

The Bible is our foundation. If we start picking and choosing what we believe then we tread on thin ice.

I agree. That's why we have hermenetics (is that the right word? )

Keep in mind in 1 Tim 2 women are denied authority over a man. Allowing a woman to be in leadership in a church would give her authority over a man.

"I do not permit a woman to teach..." I think that that 'I' is an important distinction.

As for "having authority over a man", my honest belief is that a marriage should be a partnership - submission from both sides, because marriage isn't a two-way street.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

I see what you mean, I also know that it is wrong.

Women should not be ordained. period. You can not give me a BIblical reason that they should. Without a Biblical Reason to do so in a matter of CHurch life and Theology, I wont do it.

[Ringo84]

notice the second verse well. Paul said: "...to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,." Are we not sanctified in Jesus Christ? Are we not with them "in every place" that "call upon the name of Jesus Christ?" Paul's words to the Corinthians were just as much in effect then as they are today. Paul's message didn't end when Corinth went to the wayside, it still is the living word of God and as a result, the meaning and context did not end nor did it change or cease to exist. God's word never dies. It lives as much today as it did when Paul wrote it. We are to be considered in the group with those at Corinth the same as if we were alive and there in the flesh with them. I don't care which version of the Bible you use, but we must accept one thing above all things when talking about His word. The Bible is His word! It isn't our word, it's HIS! True the prophets and the apostles wrote as the Spirit inspired them. But one thing comes up about God and His word if you truly believe in His word:

No, of course not. But we interpret the Bible as we do any other kind of literature: according to the society in which it was written, the changes in language, etc.

Please understand, folks, that I'm neither saying that the Bible is wrong or that it's meaningless. If that's what you think I'm saying, don't read so much into my posts.

"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

The priesthood was ordained by God for Aaron and his sons, not Aaron and his daughters. This principle stood until the time of the supreme High Priest Jesus Christ. So when Paul wrote to Timothy that bishops/elders should be "the husband of one wife" bishops and elders are to be men. It's not a sexist thing, we don't regulate women as second class citizens. It's a Bible thing. What does God say on the subject? It is His word that matters, not ours. And since God does not change, His word does not change. It still means "the husband of one wife." And friends, regardless of popular opinion, that is one thing women cannot be: "the husband of one wife."

That's for the Israelites. And basing an entire opposition to women on one verse (that could be opne to multiple interps) is a little strange. No offense.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

Women should not be ordained. period. You can not give me a BIblical reason that they should. Without a Biblical Reason to do so in a matter of CHurch life and Theology, I wont do it.

Let me ask you something honestly - not to be argumentative: is there a Biblical reason to ordain blacks? Asians?

Seriously.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

No, of course not. But we interpret the Bible as we do any other kind of literature: according to the society in which it was written, the changes in language, etc.

Please understand, folks, that I'm neither saying that the Bible is wrong or that it's meaningless. If that's what you think I'm saying, don't read so much into my posts.



That's for the Israelites. And basing an entire opposition to women on one verse (that could be opne to multiple interps) is a little strange. No offense.
Ringo

ANd of the verses in the New Testament forbidding women from being leaders int he church?

[mont974x4]

I agree. That's why we have hermenetics (is that the right word? )



"I do not permit a woman to teach..." I think that that 'I' is an important distinction.

As for "having authority over a man", my honest belief is that a marriage should be a partnership - submission from both sides, because marriage isn't a two-way street.
Ringo


Sorry, but the Bible is clear on the relationship in marriage. It isn't the man rules all and the wife is a slave system. It is a partnership, as I belive I said in an earlier post...but the man is held responsible as the authority in the home. The key is look at the role of husband and wife...If I truly love (agape) my wife I won;t treat her like a slave etc and she is to see to it that she respects me ( I can not force her to respect me). However, from experience, I can say that if I am loving my bride as I should she, she shows me great respect and is a great partner.

Don't let the traditional view that the society was sexist fool you. Women play key roles, but the men were held accountable by God as the leadership.


(still waiting for an example of a woman as a church leader in the NT)

[JacobHall86]

Let me ask you something honestly - not to be argumentative: is there a Biblical reason to ordain blacks? Asians?

Seriously.
Ringo

If you were serious you wouldnt ahve asked that.

[DeaconDean]

That's for the Israelites. And basing an entire opposition to women on one verse (that could be opne to multiple interps) is a little strange. No offense.
Ringo

If that (Ex. 28:1) to which you are refering to is just for Israel, then why noy say the entire Bible is for Israelites?

I tell you what, you show me in the Bible, my final authority in all matters, one example of a woman ministering in the role of high priest, and I'll change my position.

God Bless.

Till all are one.

[Ringo84]

Well... that's a good question.

I took a 'Survey of the NT' class a few semesters ago. I know that that doesn't qualify me as an expert (which I certainly am not), but some of our discussions revolved around this kind of stuff.

My professor pointed out that the verse in Corinthians (isn't it Corinthians) that talks about women remaining "silent" in church are stuck between verses of completely different subjects. It's almost as though those verses were included later - "retrofitted", you could say.

Does that affect their legitimacy? I'm not sure. Maybe it does.

I still think that that verse in Corinthians has been misinterpreted. It could be Paul's own opinion and may be speaking on a different subject than women preachers.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

Well, it's absolutely true that marriage is a partnership - an equal partnership. But what you say about 'leadership' does make sense. I would add, however, that the man should respect his wife also.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

How do you figure that? I'm not joking around; I'm making a point. Your contention is that because there are seemingly (I'm actually not sure either way) that because there are no examples of women as pastors or "elders", they cannot be pastors or "elders". But the same case could be made about blacks or Asians.

Of course I'm not saying that blacks or Asians can't be pastors - they're just examples. I'm trying to establish that that's faulty reasoning.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Well... that's a good question.

I took a 'Survey of the NT' class a few semesters ago. I know that that doesn't qualify me as an expert (which I certainly am not), but some of our discussions revolved around this kind of stuff.

My professor pointed out that the verse in Corinthians (isn't it Corinthians) that talks about women remaining "silent" in church are stuck between verses of completely different subjects. It's almost as though those verses were included later - "retrofitted", you could say.

Does that affect their legitimacy? I'm not sure. Maybe it does.

I still think that that verse in Corinthians has been misinterpreted. It could be Paul's own opinion and may be speaking on a different subject than women preachers.
Ringo

What university did you take this class at?

Its not Pauls opinion, it is the Word of God.

[Ringo84]

If that (Ex. 28:1) to which you are refering to is just for Israel, then why noy say the entire Bible is for Israelites?

Because of one verse? No; the rules about Aaron and his sons were for the Israelites. Of course the entire Bible isn't for the Israelites. That makes no sense.

I tell you what, you show me in the Bible, my final authority in all matters, one example of a woman ministering in the role of high priest, and I'll change my position.

I suggest you follow my conversation with JacobHall88.
Ringo

[daveleau]

How do you learn from Scripture by saying it is wrong? Is this not simply denying the Bible? ...The Word of God?

[Ringo84]

Its not Pauls opinion, it is the Word of God.

You're focusing on only one of the questions I raised.

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.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

Check out 1 Cor 1:1-12. The point isn't that the women weren't allowed to do certain things but they had to be under authority of men, and ultimately God. If we allow women to be placed in those positions of authority we go against Gods design.

[Ringo84]

When did I say that the Bible was wrong? Good luck finding that in my post history.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

And perhaps men are to be under women's authority, so as to create an equal partnership. After all, everyone has to be subject to someone. And shouldn't men be subject to someone on earth?

Don't go off - I'm only proposing an idea. I didn't say that it was absolutely true.
Ringo

[daveleau]

When did I say that the Bible was wrong? Good luck finding that in my post history.
Ringo

You implied it here:

The people who wrote it were living in a sexist, chauvinistic time. There's no reason that we need to recreate that society today.

Why should we learn from a document that is sexist and chauvinistic?

The last sentence says we should not follow guidance in Scripture. Why would we not follow the Word of God by recreating the teachings of Christ and the Apostles in our lives?

I'm not as taken aback by your beliefs on ordination of women as I am your statements of Scripture.

[mont974x4]

And perhaps men are to be under women's authority, so as to create an equal partnership. After all, everyone has to be subject to someone. And shouldn't men be subject to someone on earth?

Don't go off - I'm only proposing an idea. I didn't say that it was absolutely true.
Ringo

I'd buy that if it was said in the Bible, but that isn't said in the Bible. In fact it goes God, Jesus, Man, woman. We are not free and easy at the top, we are subject to the authority of Christ.

[JacobHall86]

And perhaps men are to be under women's authority, so as to create an equal partnership. After all, everyone has to be subject to someone. And shouldn't men be subject to someone on earth?

Don't go off - I'm only proposing an idea. I didn't say that it was absolutely true.
Ringo

Your idea is contrary to Scripture.

Men are Subject to God. Women are subject to Men in the CHurch and Home.

[Ringo84]

You're reading too much into my post.

For (hopefully) the last time: I don't disbelieve the Bible. I simply think that we should take into account the society during which it was written, as well as the biases of the men who wrote it (through God).

If everyone is done reading too much into my posts, I'll continue with the discussion.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

OK. It's just an idea.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

(not an argument to debate but a question): but shouldn't everyone be subject to something on earth?
Ringo

[mont974x4]

1Co 11:1 Followers of me become ye, as I also am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep,
1Co 11:3 and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.

[Ringo84]

That sounds reasonable to me in a marriage context.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

continue in the chapter...it isn't isolated to context of marriage..it includes corporate worship.

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having the head covered, doth dishonour his head,
1Co 11:5 and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven,
1Co 11:6 for if a woman is not covered--then let her be shorn, and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven--let her be covered;
1Co 11:7 for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,
1Co 11:8 for a man is not of a woman, but a woman is of a man,
1Co 11:9 for a man also was not created because of the woman, but a woman because of the man;
1Co 11:10 because of this the woman ought to have a token of authority upon the head, because of the messengers;

[Ringo84]

Yeah, but to require women to wear headgear seems rather.....outdated.

It used to be in the '50s that women wearing hats during worship was de rigeur. Hats have fallen out of favor these days.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

The hat isn't the issue...its the authority.

[Ringo84]

So you're saying that women should cover their heads to show their submission to men?
Ringo

[DeaconDean]

That's for the Israelites. And basing an entire opposition to women on one verse (that could be opne to multiple interps) is a little strange. No offense.
Ringo

Perhaps I was a bit too deep in the word for you to understand. You say the Old Testament verse I quoted was for the Israelites. True, it was. But let me clairify for you some. Let put it as plain as I can.

The entire Old Testament was written for the Israelites. Just as the entire New Testament was written for Christians of all nationalities. But Paul also wrote:

"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." -Rom. 9:6-8

When I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, I was born again, washed in His blood, redeemed, bought with a price, sanctified, and justified. And most of all, I was adopted as a son. That means I'm a seed of Abraham, just as much as Jesus was, just as much as David was, just as much as the Jewish Christian is. If I'm grafted into the vine, I'm now spiritual Israel. Therefore, the promises of the Old Testament apply to me as much as they did the Hebrews. So to say that the verse from Ex. 28:1 is for the Israelites only is wrong, plain and simple. Jesus was by birth a Jew, Israel if you will, Jesus said:

"I am the vine, ye are the branches:" -John 15:5

I have been ingrafted into the true vine. I'm now Israel, just as every born again believer is. And being ingrafted into the vine, we are subject to the O.T. just like the Israelites. So to say what you did is contrary to scripture friend.

God Bless.

Till all are one.

[arunma]

Get off your cross.

Get off yours.

I would appreciate if both of you could try to display a greater degree of Christian love for one another. What is the point of all the sound doctrine in the world if one has no love? It is worthless. As the Scriptures (inerrent or otherwise) say:
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2)
Remember that loveless Christianity is not Christianity at all. If this debate makes either of you angry, it might be a good idea to simply agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Why make shipwreck of your faith over a few words?

[Ringo84]

I don't know about the theology behind "becoming Israel", but I do know that there are a lot of laws we don't follow in the OT - and for good reason. And I think that many (not all) of the rules concerning Israelite society is one of them.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

OK.

I haven't been angry much during this debate (except when my words about Scripture were misinterpreted), but that comment did **** me off. You're right, Arunma. Thanks.
Ringo

[DeaconDean]

New Testament Endorsement For The Old Testament Law
by Greg L. Bahnsen, Th.M., Ph.D.

"The wise men will establish his moral perspective on the rock-foundation words of Christ in Scripture. Therein we are instructed that God is unchanging in His standards for righteousness, not altering them from age to age or from person to person. Since God's law defined righteousness in the Old Testament, it continues to define righteousness for us today. God has no double-standard. Whether the Christian strives to imitate the holiness of God, to model his behavior after the life of Christ, or to be led by the Spirit, he will invariably be directed by Scripture to heed the law of God; the law is a transcript of God's unchanging holiness, the standard of righteousness followed by the Savior, and the pattern of sanctification empowered by the Spirit. The continuing authority of God's law today, then, is inherent to a biblically based theology. Time does not change or wear out the validity of God's commands, and a change of geography or locality does not render them ethically irrelevant. With the coming of the New Covenant and the spreading the church throughout the world we still read in Scripture that the law of God is to be written on our hearts, and we are to disciple all nations and teach them to observe whatsoever the Lord has commanded. The Biblical doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Covenant of Grace all harmonize in pointing to the abiding validity of God's inspired law.
Moreover the validity of God's law extends to all of His righteous commandments. None can be subtracted from the stipulations which bind us without His authority; and such subtraction has no biblical warrant. Both Old and New Testaments teach God's people to live by every word from God's mouth, for God does not alter the words of His covenant. Every one of His ordinances, we are taught is everlasting. Accordingly Christ emphatically taught that His advent did not in the least abrogate one jot or tittle of the Old Testament law; according to His teaching, even the minor specifics of the law were to be observed — as a measure of our standing in the kingdom of God. Paul maintained that every Old Testament scripture has moral authority for the New Testament believer, and James pointed out that not one point of the law was to be violated. Reflecting the unchanging righteousness of God, every commandment has abiding validity for us. To subtract even the least commandment is to transgress God's explicit prohibition and to be least in the kingdom of God. Hence the morality of the Old Testament is identical with that of the New.
Jesus affirmed with solemn authority that not even the least commandment of the entire Old Testament was to be taught as without binding validity today (Matt. 5:19), for according to his perspective "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Accordingly Christ reaffirmed elements of the decalogue, for example "Thou shalt not kill" (Matt. 19:18). He also cited as morally obligatory, aspects of the Old Testament case law: for instance, "Thou shalt not defraud" (Mark 10:19), and "Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God" (Matt. 4:7). He even cited with approval the penal code of the Old Testament with respect to incorrigible delinquents (Matt. 15:4). He expected the weightier matters of the law to be observed without leaving the minor details undone (Luke 11:42). He was concerned that His own behavior be correctly seen as in accord with God's law (Mark 2:25-28), and He directed others to live by the law's regulations (Mark 1:44; 10:1719). None of this could make sense except on the obvious assumption that all of the Old Testament law continues to be an authoritative standard of morality in the New Testament era. Because that law is indeed our standard of ethics, Christ the Lord will one day judge all men who commit lawless deeds (Matt. 7:23; 13:41).
The apostolic attitude toward the law of the Old Testament parallels that of Christ. The keeping of the law is greatly significant (I Cot. 7:19), for the believer is not without the law of God (I Cor. 9:20-21). Law-breaking is not to have dominion over the believer (Rom. 6:1213; I John 3:3-5), for the Holy Spirit fulfills the ordinance of the law within him (Rom. 8:4). The law is written on the New Covenant believer's heart (Heb. 8:10), so that those who loyally follow Christ are designated by John as those "who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 12:17; 14:12). The apostles often supported their teaching by appealing to the law (e.g., I Cor. 14:34; Jas. 2:9) — its general precepts found in the decalogue (e.g., "Thou shalt not steal," Rom. 13:9), the case law applications of those details (e.g., "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads," I Tim. 5:18), the penal code (e.g., "If I am an evildoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die," Acts 25:11; cf. Deut. 21:22; Rom. 13:4), and even "holiness" requirements in the ceremonial law (e.g., 2 Cor. 6:14-18).
We must conclude that anyone whose attitude toward the Old Testament law is informed by the teaching and practice of the New Testament must maintain the law's full and continuing validity today. Those who, in the name of a distinctive "New Testament ethic," downgrade or ignore the Old Testament law are sternly warned by the Apostle John: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (I John 2:4). In genuinely Biblical ethics the Old Testament will not be pitted against the New at any point."

http://www.reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/be/be.05.79.htm

Just as Jesus' command to observe the communion until He returns is perpetual, so is the message of Ex. 28:1.

God Bless.

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

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

One last thought and I'll take my leave. Some are under the impression that because the society of the time that the Bible was originally penned was oppressive of women, in light of the enlightened times we live in, the message should be changed to reflect the times we live in. I myself, would hate to stand in front of God and give an account of how I changed His word in favor of the times.

It is true that some of the O.T. laws do not apply today. For example: the sacrifice. That law does not apply today because Jesus Christ became our sacrifice for sin to fulfill the requirments of the law. So the O.T. laws regarding the sacrifice do not apply today. Another example is the dietary laws. They do not apply in light of God's mission to Peter in Acts 10:9-16. But this ordinance for the ministry to be for men is perpetual. God said:

"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

I'm sorry friend, but the ministry, the office of that of a bishop/elder/pastor, is ordained by God for men. That is what His word says, and He says it is a perpetual law, which means it shall stand forever.

But I also realize that you do not want to believe it. I'm not gonna try to change your mind since it is apparent your set in your ways. But I will say "God bless you in your convictions."

If you feel it is OK to ordain women as bishops/elders/pastors, then fine. But consider this, when on that day we stand in front God to answer for what we did in this life, what will you say when He asks "Why did you change my word?"

God set the requirement for pastors in the O.T. as Aaron and his sons. He made it a perpetual law in Ex. 29:9. Paul confirms it in 1 Tim. 3:2, and in his letter to Titus in Titus 1:6. That is the way I take it. And I'll not compromise it for anybody. There is no presidence in the N.T. of women serving as priests/bishops/elders/pastors. So until I stand in front of God and He tells me I was wrong, I'll take God's word just as it is.

But hey, if you feel different, God Bless you brother.

Now I've spoke my peace. Most people who have been on this forum already know my stance on this subject. It has not changed in any way. If the Lord tarries and comes 30 years from now, unless God convicts my heart, I'll still stand on what His word says, and it says: "...the husband of one wife." It hasn't changed in 2000 years, and it'll stand another 2000 years. Man changes, not God, nor does His word change. Having said that, I'm outta here. Let the debate continue.

God bless.

Till all are one.

[Ringo84]

One last thought and I'll take my leave. Some are under the impression that because the society of the time that the Bible was originally penned was oppressive of women, in light of the enlightened times we live in, the message should be changed to reflect the times we live in. I myself, would hate to stand in front of God and give an account of how I changed His word in favor of the times.

You obviously misunderstand. I'm not talking about changing the Bible for modern times. I'm talking about taking into account the times during which the Bible was written.

I'm sorry friend, but the ministry, the office of that of a bishop/elder/pastor, is ordained by God for men. That is what His word says, and He says it is a perpetual law, which means it shall stand forever.

I haven't seen a convincing argument to that end; not even that verse about Aaron and his sons.


God set the requirement for pastors in the O.T. as Aaron and his sons. He made it a perpetual law in Ex. 29:9. Paul confirms it in 1 Tim. 3:2, and in his letter to Titus in Titus 1:6. That is the way I take it. And I'll not compromise it for anybody. There is no presidence in the N.T. of women serving as priests/bishops/elders/pastors. So until I stand in front of God and He tells me I was wrong, I'll take God's word just as it is.

Oh, you mean that verse "I don't permit a woman to teach"?

Man changes, not God, nor does His word change.

No, but the times during which the Bible was written is still an important context.
Ringo

[arunma]

OK.

I haven't been angry much during this debate (except when my words about Scripture were misinterpreted), but that comment did **** me off. You're right, Arunma. Thanks.

No problem. Let me add that I succomb to this sin all too often. It is written "be angry and do not sin, do not let the sun go down on your anger" (Ephesians 4:26). I find that this is far easier said than done. Indeed I find it impossible apart from God's grace. Too be honest I never considered myself an angry person at all until I became a Christian, and was convicted of this sin (along with a whole host of other vile things).

Incidentally, I would pay careful attention to Dean's opinions, even if you ultimately disagree with him. He's had formal education in the Christian faith, and is very knowledgable about the areas in which he speaks. It's so difficult to find Christians today who are orthodox but not fundamentalist, yet fortunately we've got one such person right here.

[Sweet Pea]

The disciples in the bible certainly wasn't of the *white* race as we know it. I did find this one article about black ministers in Bible times.
http://www.blackandchristian.com/articles/pulpit/ash-03-01.shtml

[leytonstones]

I think we are getting somewhat off topic. My original post was not meant to be a discussion on the rights and wrongs of womens ordination in the Baptist church but rather how it came to happen at all as I can see no biblical precedent for it.

Blessings

[mont974x4]

So you're saying that women should cover their heads to show their submission to men?
Ringo

Nope, I'm saying that women are to submit to God designed authority just as men are to submit. That means that women are not to usurp the authority of men and men are not to usurp the authority of Christ. Women don't need to cover their heads physically, but they are to recognize the authority God gave men.

Look again at the marriage, which is a baseline of God designed government and should be applied to the church as well. Women are to see to it they respect the men in leadership and men are to love women as Christ loved the church.

Check out families around you, the ones that have a husband and wife operating as God designed it are usually more peaceful and spiritually healthy homes.

Look at churches that disobey this and you will see division and contention and other questions arise quickly...for example a certain denomination now has women in leadership and they suddenly find the issue of homosexuals in leadership to be an oncoming issue. It is a dangerous road to start traveling down.

[mont974x4]

I think we are getting somewhat off topic. My original post was not meant to be a discussion on the rights and wrongs of womens ordination in the Baptist church but rather how it came to happen at all as I can see no biblical precedent for it.

Blessings


I apologize for the diversion of the topic. However, it is a relevent discussion...perhaps better for its own thread.

Back on topic...There is no biblical precedent for it. It may be a society issue. In the name of "tolerance" even the church has succumbed to the pressure of the world in order to not offend people. We would all be better off if:
1. We can find a way to take our stands for biblical truth in love
2. People wouldn't be so overly sensitive and realize it isn;t about them but maintaining Gods standards

[RajunCajun86]

I would be interested to know how women came to be ordained into ministry in the Baptist church. I personally think this is unbiblical and would be interested in your views.agreed - unbiblical (both according to the OT and NT)

[TwinCrier]

I think we are getting somewhat off topic. My original post was not meant to be a discussion on the rights and wrongs of womens ordination in the Baptist church but rather how it came to happen at all as I can see no biblical precedent for it.

BlessingsHow it came to happen is the gradual acceptance of what was once known as sin. My Sunday school teacher gave a great example of this in a class. He said the church in general only feels a need to be slightly more holy then the world. It used to be Christians never thought to enter a movie theater or casino. Then, it was acceptable as long as the movie was pure and you only gambled a little. Now most Christians would look at you sideways if you said it was evil to waste your time and money on dirty movies or casino gambling. As a point was made in a previous post:
I agree that ordaining women is unbiblical, though it doesn't bother me as much as, say, homosexual pastors.

With the world being so accepting of the most vilest of sins, something like ordaining women seems tame, almost a non-issue. It's still not right, but I hope that explains why women are being ordained now more than ever.

[arunma]

The disciples in the bible certainly wasn't of the *white* race as we know it. I did find this one article about black ministers in Bible times.
http://www.blackandchristian.com/articles/pulpit/ash-03-01.shtml


Thanks for the link. Although I knew that there were Africans in the Bible, I did not know that Simon of Cyrene was black. Very interesting.

[arunma]

With the world being so accepting of the most vilest of sins, something like ordaining women seems tame, almost a non-issue. It's still not right, but I hope that explains why women are being ordained now more than ever.

Of course you are right, the existence of homosexual pastors does not justify female pastors. I hate to quote Bill O'Reilly, but he happens to make a good point when he says "you don't justify evil by pointing at more evil."

[mont974x4]

Thanks for the link. Although I knew that there were Africans in the Bible, I did not know that Simon of Cyrene was black. Very interesting.


I think the Ethiopian church had been fertile ground for the gospel.

[Ringo84]

Maybe he was. But how many blacks in the Bible were ordained as pastors?

This is a valid issue, because the Bible has been used to justify a multitude of things both sacred and secular. It's so easy to read stuff in the Bible that isn't there, such as the "no ordination of women" rule. I believe it's based on spurious reasoning and bad logic, which is why I've debated it with you all.

Submission doesn't mean that women can't be pastors.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Maybe he was. But how many blacks in the Bible were ordained as pastors?

This is a valid issue, because the Bible has been used to justify a multitude of things both sacred and secular. It's so easy to read stuff in the Bible that isn't there, such as the "no ordination of women" rule. I believe it's based on spurious reasoning and bad logic, which is why I've debated it with you all.

Submission doesn't mean that women can't be pastors.
Ringo

The differance between a woman being ordained and a black person being ordained is that the Bible doesnt say that women are to remain quiet in Church. How can you Preach if you are to remain quiet in church?

Reading the Bible comes in handy.
Jacob

[Ringo84]

Reading the Bible comes in handy.
Yes it does, and so does studying the Bible and thinking about the origins of the verses.

That verse is probably talking about remaining quiet during the actual service - as in, not talking or chit-chatting while the pastor's trying to speak.

What are we gonna do: require women to not say anything during a service? That would be an extreme misinterpretation of that verse and overreaction.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Yes it does, and so does studying the Bible and thinking about the origins of the verses.

That verse is probably talking about remaining quiet during the actual service - as in, not talking or chit-chatting while the pastor's trying to speak.

What are we gonna do: require women to not say anything during a service? That would be an extreme misinterpretation of that verse and overreaction. In other words, it's more bad reasoning.
Ringo

Actually I beleive the women were moaning in a somewhat sexual manner during the service. Of course Paul doesnt say that only women in this church or women whoa re doing that are to remain silent, but women in Church period.

It also says they are not to teach or excercise authority over men. How can you be a pastor if you arent to excercise authority over men?

[mont974x4]

The authority issue is hard to overcome. A woman can use her gifts she just can't have authority or teach men in an official capacity. That's pretty clear.

[Ringo84]

Actually I beleive the women were moaning in a somewhat sexual manner during the service

Really?

Of course Paul doesnt say that only women in this church or women whoa re doing that are to remain silent, but women in Church period.

Well, if we carry that too far, though, that would mean that women couldn't sing during church, or recite spoken parts of the service (I can't remember the name of that). I'm not sure that that's exactly what Paul means.

It also says they are not to teach or excercise authority over men. How can you be a pastor if you arent to excercise authority over men?

Well, the writer of Timothy does say I do not permit a woman to teach. I have always considered that to modify the authority of that sentence somewhat.

For example, if I said: "I don't allow women to wear T-shirts in class", that would be different than if I said "God doesn't allow women to wear T-shirts".

I would also argue that submission doesn't necessarily mean dominance. It doesn't necessarily discount the idea of a female Sunday school teacher or pastor.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

They can teach..women and children as pointed out in Titus....they can not lead(have authority) in a church or in the home when God designed that role for men.

[Ringo84]

That sounds like the belief of a male-dominated society to me. I'm not saying that simply to come up with an argument against what you're saying - that's my honest reaction. It sounds like early Middle East men who have a societal bias against women teaching them.

Why Paul allowed such bias to bleed through to the Bible is not totally clear, though everyone's cultural bias bleeds through their writing. If it was indeed Paul who wrote that (see my post above).
Ringo

[Ringo84]

They can teach..women and children as pointed out in Titus.

In Titus' opinion.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Really?

According to my NT Survey class.


Well, the writer of Timothy does say I do not permit a woman to teach. I have always considered that to modify the authority of that sentence somewhat.

Paul wrote Timothy, and he does say I, but when can we Say God inspired the person and the person is speaking out of the flesh? Its not something we can just say "thats the person talking and thats God. Not only that, but God inspired every word of Scripture, even if Paul meant himself, the Lord inspired him to write it.


I would also argue that submission doesn't necessarily mean dominance. It doesn't necessarily discount the idea of a female Sunday school teacher or pastor.
Ringo

I didnt say it meant dominance. And I'm not aginst female sunday school teachers, for women and Children.

Kindergarten and up need to be Men, or atleast led by a man with female support.

It does discount the idea of a woman Pastor.

Jacob

[JacobHall86]

Why Paul allowed such bias to bleed through to the Bible is not totally clear, though everyone's cultural bias bleeds through their writing. If it was indeed Paul who wrote that (see my post above).
Ringo

The question actually should be "Why would God allow this bias to bleed through into the Bible."

The answer is because it is his design for Man to lead with the Womens support.

[mont974x4]

In Titus' opinion.
Ringo


Nope, that would be directly from God's Word. the God breathed God inspired Bible that we are warned to not add to or take away from.

[JacobHall86]

Nope, that would be directly from God's Word. the God breathed God inspired Bible that we are warned to not add to or take away from.

One quick thing, the passage you cited in revelation is actually seen as referring simply to the Book of Revelation, since the Bible wasnt cannonized until the third century and Revelation was written roughly 95 AD. It was common place for people to add and take things away from writings to make it fit what they wanted. It was a warning to beleivers to not change the words of Revelation, not the Bible as a whole.

However you are correct about the rest.

[Ringo84]

According to my NT Survey class.

Hmmm. In mine, we discussed the possibility that women were gossiping during church, but not that they might have been groaning. Not that your teacher's wrong. I just honestly hadn't heard it.

Paul wrote Timothy, and he does say I, but when can we Say God inspired the person and the person is speaking out of the flesh? Its not something we can just say "thats the person talking and thats God. Not only that, but God inspired every word of Scripture, even if Paul meant himself, the Lord inspired him to write it.

Well, that gets into the whole inspiration issue. My belief is that the Bible was inspired by God, but that God didn't necessarily dictate every word, phrase, comma, and dash. It was written by imperfect men who are subject to human frailty.

Now, does that discount the Bible as "unholy" or "untrue"? No, but I think that we should at least bear that in mind when we open the Bible and see passages and rules that seem odd.

I didnt say it meant dominance. And I'm not aginst female sunday school teachers, for women and Children.

Kindergarten and up need to be Men, or atleast led by a man with female support.

It does discount the idea of a woman Pastor.

I don't think that the Sunday school rule is necessarily Biblical. But I'm not saying that simply because I disagree.

To be honest, I don't think that the idea of a woman pastor is discounted.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

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.

As I told Jacob, that doesn't mean that I disbelieve the Bible or think that it isn't holy. It's just something to consider when you read the Bible.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

The question actually should be "Why would God allow this bias to bleed through into the Bible."

The answer is because it is his design for Man to lead with the Womens support.

I still believe that that is more Paul's bias than the Law of the Meads and the Persians.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

It would be nice if God and His Word fit our every opinion but that would lead to chaos...God intended for us to be conformed to Him and His Word not the other way around. His Word is clear on the roles of men and women in the home and in the church.

Just because you think it is odd or unfair doesn't make it wrong. Keep in mind God knows best and we all do better when we rest in that, even when we don't understand His reasons.

[Ringo84]

That's easy to say. But the fact is that the Bible has been used to justify a lot of philosophies both good and bad.

I think that both sides often use the Bible to justify unbiblical or at least dubious philosophies. That's why I question the Bible - in light of the context in which it was written.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

How about this, Pray and ask God to open your eyes, ears, and heart to His truth and help you set aside your preconceived ideas?


Just because others have twisted the Word doesn't give us the right too. Take it at face value and then look at corresponding verses and the priginal text and meaning.

[Ringo84]

Take it at face value and then look at corresponding verses and the priginal text and meaning.

I have been looking at the meaning. I'm still not convinced.

And the only "preconceived notion" that I have is that women are politically equal to men. And they should be in the ministry also.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

I have been looking at the meaning. I'm still not convinced.

And the only "preconceived notion" that I have is that women are politically equal to men. And they should be in the ministry also.
Ringo

Politics and Religion are differant.

Politics is Godless, Religion is not.

(I say that as someone who has a desire to run for office)

[mont974x4]

ministry? yes. We see Prisca mentioned. We know women can be used mightily by God, but it is clear that they can not have those authoritative roles...no matter how bad you want it to be otherwise. They can do anything but be head of the house or head of the church.

[mont974x4]

We should look to the Bible as our basis for all aspects of our life..that is why God gave it to us. Our relationship with Him should permeate everything we do.

[MbiaJc]

Why not? Both are unbiblical and ought to be shunned without compromise by saying "one is better than the other." I don't think you're saying this, but it can be extrapolated from what your saying and does lend a little credance to the other position.

That right both are unbiblical, however this one man pastoral authority is unbiblical also.

:wave: I am in no way taking up for women and gay ministers. :wave:

[mont974x4]

That right both are unbiblical, however this one man pastoral authority is unbiblical also.

:wave: I am in no way taking up for women and gay ministers. :wave:

I agree with that. I think the plurality of elders is far closer to the intended form of church government than what we usually see today and the idea of a single man having all authority is dangerous.

[JacobHall86]

That right both are unbiblical, however this one man pastoral authority is unbiblical also.

?????

[mont974x4]

?????


I believe he may be refering to those churches that turn over all authority to a single person, the pastor

[JacobHall86]

I believe he may be refering to those churches that turn over all authority to a single person, the pastor

Yea, I know that, I want to know what is unBiblical about it?

I know of an awesome church in this area that is like that.

[mont974x4]

Yea, I know that, I want to know what is unBiblical about it?

I know of an awesome church in this area that is like that.


Well is there an excample of that in the Bible?

We have no pastor, we have 3 elders (small church) and one of them has the duty (paid position) of fulltime preaching elder. Our youth leader is part time and paid. They are the spiritual leaders. We then have a couple of deacons for day to day business (building and grounds, finances).

[JacobHall86]

Well is there an excample of that in the Bible?

We have no pastor, we have 3 elders (small church) and one of them has the duty (paid position) of fulltime preaching elder. Our youth leader is part time and paid. They are the spiritual leaders. We then have a couple of deacons for day to day business (building and grounds, finances).

James.
Timothy.
Titus.

[mont974x4]

Is there a reference that says they were the sole authority in their given church?

[JacobHall86]

I dont know of any right off hand, but I dont believe there is scripture saying that they shared authority with any other man.

[mont974x4]

It seems to me that multiple elders was the norm.

Act 14:23 and having appointed to them by vote elders in every assembly, having prayed with fastings, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Act 15:1 And certain having come down from Judea, were teaching the brethren--`If ye be not circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye are not able to be saved;'
Act 15:2 there having been, therefore, not a little dissension and disputation to Paul and Barnabas with them, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, to go up unto the apostles and elders to Jerusalem about this question,
Act 15:3 they indeed, then, having been sent forward by the assembly, were passing through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the nations, and they were causing great joy to all the brethren.

Jam 5:14 is any infirm among you? let him call for the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, having anointed him with oil, in the name of the Lord,

[JacobHall86]

Ahh yes, Elders. I was thinking he was talking Deacons. I misread it.

[mont974x4]

Definition of deacon, deacons, and elder according to Strongs

G1247
διακονέω
diakoneō
dee-ak-on-eh'-o
From G1249; to be an attendant, that is, wait upon (menially or as a host, friend or [figuratively] teacher); technically to act as a Christian deacon: - (ad-) minister (unto), serve, use the office of a deacon.

G4244
πρεσβυτέριον
presbuterion
pres-boo-ter'-ee-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of G4245; the order of elders, that is, (specifically) Israelite Sanhedrim or Christian "presbytery": - (estate of) elder(-s), presbytery.

[Ringo84]

I dont know of any right off hand, but I dont believe there is scripture saying that they shared authority with any other man.
Doesn't mean they can't.
Ringo

[mont974x4]

Doesn't mean they can't.
Ringo

What we are discussing at this point is the idea of a plurality of elders and deacons. I think that is the way it was originally.The authority was shared by the men in those roles.

[Flynmonkie]

Questioning the Bible is a healthy thing. I don't apologize for questioning the Bible because it leads to greater faith.
Women should be ordained.
Ringo

Ringo, you have to understand, some people need a system as foundation before they grow reach the truth. However, some people seem to fall into a mandate and stay there. That is ok too, because that is obviously what they need to grow. Only God knows their heart condition and why each of us are called to the knowledge we have. I agree with you, spiritual equality and "relations" amongst Married Christians are two separate issues that are somehow intermingled here. I belong to an SBC, believe it or not, and this is how my pastor has described it to me. We, further along in understanding, have to have compassion and wisdom to support those whom are still in this stage of growth.

It is so wonderful to hit that stage of knowledge we want to share, but those whom are still babes do not understand. Very rarely you will find spiritual discernment involved in discussions such as these. For those of us that do understand, there is no discussion. Because to do so, would come across to others as arrogance, they forget all the other great things about what you stand for as a Christian brother or sister, and label you a sinner, or a lack of logic or other things.

This is the price we pay for spiritual knowledge and discernment in a world full of denominations, and schools of Theology, that are all about big business, more so than Godliness. Half the time most people don’t know why they believe what they believe and don’t ever open their bibles and study truly, the other time they are playing follow the leaders, rather than believing that God will lead their studies, trying and testing everything.

For clarification, the husband’s role as leader encompasses bringing a woman up to his level of spirituality. There is equality there. Just as Christ has brought us to Gods level (no, I do not mean we are little Gods running to and fro). Christs blood brought us justification, and sanctification. His death, [read: his love and servitude] which is what males are instructed [just as females but in a different explanation] to do in relation to their wives. This goes for other Christians too, single, young, old, widowed etc... We are supposed to grow beyond the "training wheels" here. Lifting each other up in spiritual equality.

Now, there is no sin in allowing a woman in a leadership role, if it is for the right reasons and she speaks the truth. The bible teaches us that God works in many ways, and through anyone. We can trust God because as Christians, we have that faith. The Holy Spirit does not discriminate between sexes. It works the same way for all of us. No need to question that! The good news should not turn to bad because of the sex of the one delivering it. If a church cannot handle a woman in leadership, then so be it, but if others can, there is no reason it should be considered – sinful. In fact, I view scriptures quite a bit differently there. By viewing what is good, from God, sinful, it is not only quenching the spirit, it is assuming one knows more than God does. If you plan to stay in the Baptist faith, know that this will be a huge source of contention. But I am lucky; I have a SBC pastor that believes the same way I do in this area so prayers will be answered.
:prayer:

[mont974x4]

Careful to not ignore biblical truth in the name of "tolerance" and political correctness. Sometimes we need to decide if we are going to take a liberal stand on an issue in order to not offend people or taking a hard stand on an issue in order to not offend God.

In the case of women in those authority roles there is no room for discussion. The Scripture is very clear.

Keep in mind that husband and wife are equal but the husband is held accountable as the authority figure. This is why it says sin entered through Adam altho it was Eve that was first decieved. Adam failed in his role.

The trinity consists of 3 dinstinct persons that are also one. They have diferent roles, even Jesus acknowledged this when He said only the Father would know when He would return.

Neither of these two examples point to a sub/dom relationship only that their is a God designed authority role....the husband in the home and men in the church.

[Ringo84]

Careful to not ignore biblical truth in the name of "tolerance" and political correctness. Sometimes we need to decide if we are going to take a liberal stand on an issue in order to not offend people or taking a hard stand on an issue in order to not offend God.

In the case of women in those authority roles there is no room for discussion. The Scripture is very clear.

Keep in mind that husband and wife are equal but the husband is held accountable as the authority figure. This is why it says sin entered through Adam altho it was Eve that was first decieved. Adam failed in his role.

The trinity consists of 3 dinstinct persons that are also one. They have diferent roles, even Jesus acknowledged this when He said only the Father would know when He would return.

Neither of these two examples point to a sub/dom relationship only that their is a God designed authority role....the husband in the home and men in the church.
Careful to not ignore biblical truth in the name of "tolerance" and political correctness.

It's not "tolerance" or "political correctness". It's the way things are.

In the case of women in those authority roles there is no room for discussion. The Scripture is very clear.

Obviously not, as we are still debating it - as are many other Christians.

This is why it says sin entered through Adam altho it was Eve that was first decieved. Adam failed in his role.

They were both responsible for what happened in the Garden. Both were deceived. It wasn't about "roles"; it was about deception.

and men in the church

You mean: "and men and women in the church". :)
Ringo

[mont974x4]

I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Women are not to have those authority roles in the home or the church.

As to tolerance and p.c. that may be the way the nation is heading and is invading our churches but it is not the way things were meant to be according to God and His Word.


On Adam and Eve...it is said she was deceived, while he is blamed as the way sin entered the world.


Yes, we are still discussing it but only because many people won't give up their own opinions and submit to that portion of Scripture and its authority.

[JacobHall86]

The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. It says women are not to have authority over men. That is not some passage that is hard to comprehend or discern, it is point blank.

Women are not to hold authority, if they cant hold authority, they cant Preach. They have no business being ordained.

[Ringo84]

I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Women are not to have those authority roles in the home or the church.

As to tolerance and p.c. that may be the way the nation is heading and is invading our churches but it is not the way things were meant to be according to God and His Word.


On Adam and Eve...it is said she was deceived, while he is blamed as the way sin entered the world.


Yes, we are still discussing it but only because many people won't give up their own opinions and submit to that portion of Scripture and its authority.
Women are not to have those authority roles in the home or the church.

That's open to interpretation.

On Adam and Eve...it is said she was deceived, while he is blamed as the way sin entered the world.

They were both deceived. There's that cultural bias again. A person from the times during which the Bible was written would have heard the Garden of Eden story growing up. Having grown up in a male-dominant society, they would have concluded that only Eve was responsible for what happened in the Garden. It's not true.

Yes, we are still discussing it but only because many people won't give up their own opinions and submit to that portion of Scripture and its authority.

No, we're debating it because it's open to interpretation.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. It says women are not to have authority over men. That is not some passage that is hard to comprehend or discern, it is point blank.

Women are not to hold authority, if they cant hold authority, they cant Preach. They have no business being ordained.
It says women are not to have authority over men. That is not some passage that is hard to comprehend or discern, it is point blank.

Women are not to hold authority, if they cant hold authority, they cant Preach. They have no business being ordained.

It's open to interpretation.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

It's open to interpretation.
Ringo

No its not.

But how else would you interpret that passage?

[Ringo84]

No its not.

But how else would you interpret that passage?
If it's not open to interpretation, what does it matter? Might as well take the verse at face value without context, right?

Seriously.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

If it's not open to interpretation, what does it matter? Might as well take the verse at face value without context, right?

Seriously.
Ringo

I never said take it out of context. I just said its not open for personal interpretation.

But you disagree, so I was wondering how you would interpret it.

[Ringo84]

I never said take it out of context. I just said its not open for personal interpretation.

But you disagree, so I was wondering how you would interpret it.
The entire Bible's open to private interpretation.

Mine? That we should take the verse about women in context with Biblical society, with the writers' opinion (I'm talking Paul, whoever wrote Titus, etc).

I believe that women can and should be equal partners with men under God. That there is no practical reason (and barely a scriptural one either) to ban women from the ministry; most of it is a misreading of the Bible and sexism.

I appreciate your opinions, but I remain skeptical.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

And here are some more verses to chew on:

Acts 1:14 -
" All there with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."


Romans 16:1-4 --
" I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a helper of many and myself as well. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks."
Philippians 4:3 --
" And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

Or how about this fairly forward-looking (for Bible times) verse in I Corinthians 7:3 and 4 --
" The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does."
So my question to all of you: if women were supposedly not ordained in the NT, how do you explain Phoebe? Or Priscilla and Aquila?
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Noone said to ban women from Ministry. We are not allowing them to be Ordained or be in a leadership status.

Also, check out 2 Peter 1:20-21. It should clear up that personal interpretation thing.

[JacobHall86]

The word Deaconess in the passage mentioning pheobe is better translated as "Servant".

Besides, Deacons hold no power. They were originally set up to serve orphans and widows, not lead the Church as pastors. Also look at the qaulifications of a Deacon. How is a woman to be a husband to one wife?

The other verses you cited would be good If I said women shouldnt be allowed in church, but I ahvent. Only that they shouldnt be ordained.

[Ringo84]

The word Deaconess in the passage mentioning pheobe is better translated as "Servant".

Besides, Deacons hold no power. They were originally set up to serve orphans and widows, not lead the Church as pastors. Also look at the qaulifications of a Deacon. How is a woman to be a husband to one wife?

The other verses you cited would be good If I said women shouldnt be allowed in church, but I ahvent. Only that they shouldnt be ordained.
Nice try. But it falls short.

Besides, Deacons hold no power. They were originally set up to serve orphans and widows, not lead the Church as pastors. Also look at the qaulifications of a Deacon. How is a woman to be a husband to one wife?

They were leaders of the church, just as deacons are today. So women leading the church is Biblical.

The other verses you cited would be good If I said women shouldnt be allowed in church, but I ahvent. Only that they shouldnt be ordained.

My meaning was not to prove that women weren't allowed in church but that they were equal leaders with Paul, as the verses clearly establish.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

According to dictionary.com, a deacon is:

1.(in hierarchical churches) a member of the clerical order next below that of a priest.
2.(in other churches) an appointed or elected officer having variously defined duties.

Look it up yourself. www.dictionary.com.
Ringo

[Flynmonkie]

The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. It says women are not to have authority over men. That is not some passage that is hard to comprehend or discern, it is point blank.

Women are not to hold authority, if they cant hold authority, they cant Preach. They have no business being ordained.


Have you ever thought of interpreting this passage to mean something very "common sense" especially for the time, Jews and Gentiles learning to be Christian... Women bossing their husbands around (Gentile) Men stoning their wives for infractions (Jews) and use this to understand that passage and others? While you are at it, read the entire passages and explain about what instructions there are for "single" women?

Are we Jews or Gentiles learning to be Christians? Or are we Christians seeking Christ in all that we do that translates to lifting one another up - no matter sex - to a spiritual equality?

Of course a woman should not "rule" over her husband, of course a husband should not "rule" over their wives. In the church, if somehow a woman is led or called to a leadership role, and it is deserving, I see no problems with this.

Beth Moore is a good example of a leader in the SBC. Men read her books also, and are beating down the doors to get in her classes. Although, she does not bear the title, due to "political correctness" of the church, very clear to me she is leading, or is that called something else. I guess I just don't get that technical about it. No one is infallible, as I have mentioned before, you hear in Baptist circles that they believe Catholics are wrong to "view" the Pope in this manner, yet are we not doing the same in our own churches and calling it something else?

FYI, I have never been politically correct in any circle. In the "secular world" I bristle others, as do I in the Christian world. Right is Right. Good is from God. There is no dispute about that.

But then again, I guess the point of contention here is "perception" of what is good for the individual, and individual church or good for the church [read: body of believers].
:prayer: IMHCO

[JacobHall86]

Deacons are leaders that hold no power. They are servant leaders. The word Deacon means servant.

So even if a women was a deacon she still has not authority. Women leading the church is NOT BIblical.

On a Spiritual Level men adn women are equal, Church leadership they are not. Those verses do not say they were equal in leadership to Paul. Paul wasnt married so the one about marraige doesnt apply to Paul.

[JacobHall86]

Flyn, I dont think about how I can interpret passages, I read them and let them speak for themselves.

Beth Moore is a Womens Bible Study Leader who writes Books for Women. SHe doesnt bear the Title Pastor because of the "Political Correctness" of the Church? I will assume you meant the Political Incorrectness. Seeing as how barring women from ordination is not PC, however it is Very BIblically Correct.

You may not see a problem with Women leading the Church, However the Bible does.

[Ringo84]

Deacons are leaders that hold no power. They are servant leaders. The word Deacon means servant.

So even if a women was a deacon she still has not authority. Women leading the church is NOT BIblical.

On a Spiritual Level men adn women are equal, Church leadership they are not. Those verses do not say they were equal in leadership to Paul. Paul wasnt married so the one about marraige doesnt apply to Paul.
Deacons are leaders that hold no power. They are servant leaders. The word Deacon means servant.

So even if a women was a deacon she still has not authority. Women leading the church is NOT BIblical.

It is Biblical. Those verses are from the Bible.

And you said "Deacons are leaders that hold no power. They are servant leaders". Servant leaders are still leaders.

Those verses do not say they were equal in leadership to Paul.

Then why would Paul write "that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints"? Or "for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers"?
Ringo

[Ringo84]

Flyn, I dont think about how I can interpret passages, I read them and let them speak for themselves.

Beth Moore is a Womens Bible Study Leader who writes Books for Women. SHe doesnt bear the Title Pastor because of the "Political Correctness" of the Church? I will assume you meant the Political Incorrectness. Seeing as how barring women from ordination is not PC, however it is Very BIblically Correct.

You may not see a problem with Women leading the Church, However the Bible does.
If it looks like a pastor, feels like a pastor and smells like a pastor.... well, you know the rest.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

If it looks like a pastor, feels like a pastor and smells like a pastor.... well, you know the rest.
Ringo


Doenst make it right. BTW, Pastors are Men, so a woman cant look liek one.

Look at Joel Osteen.

[Ringo84]

Doenst make it right. BTW, Pastors are Men, so a woman cant look liek one.

Look at Joel Osteen.
BTW, Pastors are Men, so a woman cant look liek one.

That's bad logic. One for FSTDT.
Ringo

[Flynmonkie]

So the Bible was written to men, and women are just supposed to follow men around because God only bestows the work of the Holy Spirit through them and them alone? Is that what you really want to say to those seeking? Is this the image that God really wishes for us to project as Christians in sharing the gospel of Christ?

No wonder women have to write books to explain what “pastors” mean?!?! Seriously though, Beth Moore had been recommended to me by a man whom had learned much from her understanding and explanation of application of scriptures, especially in what we should be worried abut first and foremost – working out our own salvation, as Paul instructs.

The truth is the truth no matter how delivered, to say something different is to quench the Spirit and THAT IS clearly against scripture.

A leader is one whom has an understanding of that truth and can share it. Every one of us has been given this ability in some way or level or another. I know women that could run circles around some men in spiritual discernment, and vice versa. There is no head of the Church but Christ..

[arunma]

The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. It says women are not to have authority over men. That is not some passage that is hard to comprehend or discern, it is point blank.

Women are not to hold authority, if they cant hold authority, they cant Preach. They have no business being ordained.

Agreed. But this begs the question: who is to blame? Is it the women, or the men? See this Scripture.
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, "Has not the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded you, 'Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin's army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand'?" Barak said to her, "If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go." And she said, "I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. (Judges 4:4-9)
It seems to me that the sin belongs to the men when there is such a shortage of leaders that a woman must take the role that God has designed specifically for a man.

[Ringo84]

Agreed. But this begs the question: who is to blame? Is it the women, or the men? See this Scripture.
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, "Has not the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded you, 'Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin's army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand'?" Barak said to her, "If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go." And she said, "I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. (Judges 4:4-9)
It seems to me that the sin belongs to the men when there is such a shortage of leaders that a woman must take the role that God has designed specifically for a man.
It seems to me that the sin belongs to the men when there is such a shortage of leaders that a woman must take the role that God has designed specifically for a man.

Men should be blamed for situations when women have to take over? How do you figure that, Arunma?
Ringo

[DeaconDean]

So the Bible was written to men, and women are just supposed to follow men around because God only bestows the work of the Holy Spirit through them and them alone? Is that what you really want to say to those seeking? Is this the image that God really wishes for us to project as Christians in sharing the gospel of Christ?

No wonder women have to write books to explain what “pastors” mean?!?! Seriously though, Beth Moore had been recommended to me by a man whom had learned much from her understanding and explanation of application of scriptures, especially in what we should be worried abut first and foremost – working out our own salvation, as Paul instructs.

The truth is the truth no matter how delivered, to say something different is to quench the Spirit and THAT IS clearly against scripture.

A leader is one whom has an understanding of that truth and can share it. Every one of us has been given this ability in some way or level or another. I know women that could run circles around some men in spiritual discernment, and vice versa. There is no head of the Church but Christ..

Hi Sis, this is kinda off-topic but haven't seen you around in a while and just wanted to say "God Bless Ya." And that I'm not gonna debate with you. I know how you feel and you know how I feel. But anywho...

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Flynmonkie]

:wave: Nice to see you DD! Hope all is well! I've been busy with the evolution/creationism issues in a "secular world" sort of thing...--> UGH!

Awwwhh, Debate is fun! What a party pooper you are! ;) Remember, iron sharpening iron! Christian liberty is a wonderful thing. :)

[DeaconDean]

I know, I know.


Anywho, God Bless ya Sis, and hope the studies are going well.

God Bless.

Till all are one.

[JacobHall86]

So the Bible was written to men, and women are just supposed to follow men around because God only bestows the work of the Holy Spirit through them and them alone? Is that what you really want to say to those seeking? Is this the image that God really wishes for us to project as Christians in sharing the gospel of Christ?

No wonder women have to write books to explain what “pastors” mean?!?! Seriously though, Beth Moore had been recommended to me by a man whom had learned much from her understanding and explanation of application of scriptures, especi