-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
female preacher
- Thread starter Birck DK
- Start date
- Status
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,307
- 19,836
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I would say it's a biased translation.
We know this was a common idiom for marital faithfulness. As I understand it, the point is having one spouse, and being faithful in marriage, not the gender of the person concerned.
I have every reason to continue to contribute, when I see people making bad or weak arguments for preventing women from ministering.
I'm glad you don't wish to cause insult; that is, at least, more grace than many people show.
Upvote
0
Now could that possibly be because Priscilla was not abusing a worldy position of socioeconomic power to promote the worship of Artemis at the time? This post is intended as a rhetorical question.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 29,768
- 8,937
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I've already said that Paul wrote letters to his churches for a number of reasons, one of which was to address their circumstances or problems that that church was having. You agreed with that.
Paul did not sit down and say "now I'm going to write Scripture, which will serve as a command for churches in 2000 years time." If Jesus had returned in his lifetime, as he expected, there would be no church.
The truth that Christ has set us free, yes; Jesus said so, John 8:36.When Paul says to the Gallations
For, brothers, you were called to be free. Only do not let that freedom become an excuse for allowing your old nature to have its way. Instead, serve one another in love. For the whole of the Torah is summed up in this one sentence: “Love your neighbor as yourself”; but if you go on snapping at each other and tearing each other to pieces, watch out, or you will be destroyed by each other!
Is he ONLY talking to the Galations? Doea iy not apply to us today?
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 5:13, Galatians 5:14, Galatians 5:15 - Complete Jewish Bible
For, brothers, you were called to be free. Only do not let that freedom become an excuse for allowing your old nature to have its way. Instead, serve one another in love.www.biblegateway.com
The teaching that we should love our neighbour as ourselves, yes; Jesus said so, Mark 12:31.
Paul himself said not to get involved in stupid arguments, 2 Timothy 2:23. And both Paul and Jesus talked of serving one another in love.
It could be said, incidentally, that this debate falls into the latter category - it won't change anything.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 29,768
- 8,937
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yet 1 Tim 2:12-14, which talks about women not speaking, teaching or having authority over men, has also been discussed.
So do you take some verses of Scripture literally but not others?
But if it were God's will/plan/command that women should never teach or be Pastors, Paul would have made it clear - instead of assuming that people would understand this after reading a letter that he would write several years later.
In fact, it would have been taught from the beginning. 1 Timothy was written towards the end of Paul's life - after many years of working alongside women in ministry.
You can't force love.
If they didn't love their wives, they wouldn't have married them.
1 Timothy 2:12 does not say anything about acting as pastor of a church; it says that Paul did not permit women to teach or violently snatch authority from men.
Either that is to be taken literally - in which case, why did Paul allow Priscilla to teach? Or it was addressing a particular situation.
Yes, Priscilla was with her husband. Does that mean that women can be pastors, or ordained, if they minister with their husbands or have his permission?
I'm not rejecting Scripture at all.
In this case I'm trying to point out the need for consistency.
Regarding 1 Tim 2:12; either we need to take, and apply, this literally today, or we don't.
If a person believes that we should, and they go to a church which does not allow women to speak, teach or take part in anything in case they are seen to be having authority over men - great; they are putting what they believe into practice. There are churches, and people, who believe that this is how we should interpret this verse and that carrying it out means that women do nothing in church.
I have always said that if this is a person's sincere belief, they have to do it. They have to be faithful to what they believe the Scriptures are saying.
So it would be inconsistent to say, "women cannot teach unless they are with their husbands". If women are not to teach, they are not to teach.
Many people, and churches, do not accept the above-mentioned verse as a divine command for today. So they do allow women to teach, to read the Scriptures, to preach and even to be ordained; which is also great.
But there is not always consistency. I have seen some on these forums, who believe that women are allowed to preach, quote this verse to "prove" that they cannot be ordained. While others quote it and say that women cannot even read the Scriptures or give Christian testimonies in church.
My own denomination has discussed, prayed about and debated the matter and concluded, before God, that there is no reason why women should not be preach or be ordained. So they allow women to test a call from God to those ministries.
You may not agree with that interpretation - and presumably, you go to a church/denomination which believes as you do.
Upvote
0
Which of these applies everywhere, to everything all the time ?
"For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."1 Corinthians 15:9 NIV
or
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God"—Romans 1:1 NIV
Should Paul be called an apostle, or should we respect the fact that he doesn't deserve it?
Please include an explanation as to why it is you make one of these the one you act on, and not the other.
Upvote
0
Isn't this why you are so zealous to affirm a woman's right to stand in a spiritual place of authority over men?
Or happen to be the pastor ...
When it's necessary. When they're called. Why deny it?
And this is one of the problems: you are trying to interpret Scripture using our culture. Instead of maintaining the cultural context God's Word is given in which should help you interpret Scripture.
Agreed. I pointed that out earlier: Christ is the Head of the church. Husband is head of the household. Men are the appointed leaders in the church.
Not because I want it to be that way, it is the way God established/es in His Word.
What we "like" is irrelevant. And again, you are rationalizing.
I'm well aware of that, lol.
Glad to see you submitting to a man's teaching.
Says Paidiske? Says commentaries? Sorry, but what they like to think is also irrelevant. Because it still remains, the instructions clearly identify who is in view: a man. If you want to fall back on popular commentary positions, okay, doesn't change the context of the Word of God.
So you're guessing? Your arguments are based on guessing? Is that how one should build their foundation?
Can we consider that a long intervening span of time and a culture unlike the original setting—had no impact on the teaching?
And what does the Lord do? He uses what was written to supply the answer. Then He goes to the principle that is the source and authority for the Scripture: God's will. That is how we are still to understand God's will: by the Scripture and the underlying principles that He intends for us to understand.
Bingo.
Except, your line of reasoning tosses that right out the window. The fact remains, Paul did not suffer a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Because you reject that, you are forced to rationalize a very simple statement.
More rationalizing of a simple principle that goes back to beginning of God's instruction.
You do realize that when Jews are specifically spoken to, this is pointed out?
James 1
King James Version
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
And while the Book of Hebrews doesn't declare it is written to Hebrews, it is generally accepted it is. We know this due to the
This may be another problem for you to consider: Christ's ministry was specific to the Jews, hence the disciples, when they were sent out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (to be distinguished from the Gospel of Christ), did not go unto the Samaritans or Gentiles. Because it is the Gospel of Christ that is relevant to the world, whereas the Gospel of the Kingdom was relevant primarily to the Nation of Israel, for unto them were the promises given (though ultimately all prophecy is intended for all of Mankind (Genesis 3:15).
The problem I am pointing out is this: your argument has a faulty basis. We wouldn't conclude that church should be governed by Jews because Christ appointed only Jews to be His disciples; this takes place within the economy of the Old Testament, and is irrelevant in regard to the instruction given for the leadership of the Church (the Body of Christ) and the churches.
Again, bingo.
And this looks like a good place to continue, so as not to make such a long response.
And this is relevant to the instruction given to the Church, how? And, for the record, women cannot be priests; the proper term would be priestess. So a woman would be priestessed.
So as not to make this an extremely long post, I will break it up
Upvote
0
As a general rule, I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that they are now under the rule of the man as a result of the Fall. This is why we have Scripture with instruction as to the roles of men and women, husbands and wives.
Agreed.
You would have to provide a scriptural basis for your argument. What I read is that man was created complete. His problem was that he was alone.
Mankind was created in God's image, but there is a distinction between male and female in creation.
Yes, you are wrong, on at least two counts.
There is clearly an inferiority to one who helps and one who owns.
Secondly, we must view the issue, not from a perspective of original creation, but from a perspective that takes into account the Fall. Woman's original creation, like the man's, is irrelevant to the instruction we now have, both implicit and explicit.
Third, and most importantly, to equate the role of the Comforter to the the role of women is, in my humble opinion, going way beyond the boundaries of reasonable argument. But then, when one views God to make mistakes, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
And where is the Comforter said to be subservient to men? Do wives provide help as He does? Or is this an entirely different matter irrelevant of the current discussion?
I'd have to disagree: Moses' role far exceeds the roles of Aaron and Miriam.
The fact is, some people are inferior to others. There's a reason why a boss can tell his helper to wash up the floor when a customer spills their coffee.
But we have to distinguish the context, right? If we are talking about the lives of people, then there's an equality. But if our context regards a boss and an employee, we can say without controversy one is superior, one is inferior. In the context of this discussion, sorry, but the wife is inferior to the husband.
No, God created Adam in His image, all born after the Fall are created in the image of their parents:
Genesis 5
King James Version
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Note: I usually enlarge the Scripture, but I seem to be having trouble with the BBCode toggle at the time, so I won't be able to do that in my responses.
Whether he is better than you is irrelevant: it still remains—he is your spiritual leader in a church setting. He has the rule over you (Hebrews 13:7; Hebrews 13:17).
That is the crux of the matter.
Agreed, in general : nothing in Scripture supports your arguments. This is why it is necessary to appeal to commentaries.
I'm sorry, but you aren't saying that. You are saying we should look at commentaries and the opinions of other members.
Agreed. And in the context of the passages we are looking at, women are not to teach nor usurp authority over the man, and the reason is not because wives were shouting to their husbands, the reason is because Eve was deceived and as a result of that the woman has been placed in subjection to the man.
If you want to interpret wife as being relevant, okay. It doesn't change the principle being taught.
I'm not arguing women should remain silent in all churches of all time, I'm simply pointing out that Paul did not permit a woman to teach a man or to usurp authority. What is exhortation is clearly presented as exhortation, but there is a shift from exhortation to an adamant pronouncement:
1 Timothy 2
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
He exhorts "the woman" to learn ... but he does/will not suffer a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man. The silence isn't general, it is in the context of authority. And the reason given goes back to the Fall:
1 Timothy 2
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
I will go ahead and mention here that the salvation in v.15 is a reference to, again, a result of the Fall:
Genesis 3
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Despite the sorrow childbirth would bring (which I would suggest refers to more than the pain of childbirth, such as the sorrow of one son killing another), the woman would be "saved." I mention this to point out arguments that include a salvific reference (as have been offered) are irrelevant, because the salvation in view is not a reference to Eternal Redemption. It isn't even a reference to salvation in regard to the justification of Old Testament saints; it is saying that the consequences of sin imposed specifically on the woman were not final (in a sense of imposed judgment without continuing existence).
And let's not forget that this is conditional: if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Death is still imposed on believers that fall into a a pattern of unrepented sin.
Thus, a woman is not to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man because it is a result of the Fall. Has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority, it is because, Paul says—God declared it to be. That is a principle found three chapters into Scripture.
Continued...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,307
- 19,836
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Ahem. I'm a woman.Glad to see you submitting to a man's teaching.
No, Christian priests - male and female - are priests. The term "priestess" is a slur, and is generally considered a flame on CF when applied to women who are Christian priests.
Upvote
0
Rationalization.
Where in the text does he say he doesn't suffer a man to teach, nor usurp authority?
Rationalization: the instruction was given, as a whole, to instruct the churches.
Are you going to suggest that only part of Paul's instruction was intended to be authoritative? Did he make suggestions because he wanted to get his opinion in on matters? We may be able to distinguish between what is exhortation and what is definitive in his teaching, but he did not exhort based on his opinion, but because he felt he had the mind of Christ in the teachings, directives, and exhortations.
Great. Now view it in the context: it is absolutely forbidden. He would not suffer it. Don't you think he had the authority to make this clear? Does it really seem to be a suggestion, or a definitive position Paul takes? Would he have made this statement if he thought it violated the will of God?
Again ... relevance?
Have you considered that this makes his position all the more concrete?
Again, you shift from the context of the Bible to the context of a system that is outside of the instruction Paul gives.
This is akin to "God made a mistake because there ARE female bishops."
Again, it is completely different only in a system outside of the instruction.
Not sure what it is you don't feel is clear. Adam had dominion over the world because God gave him (and I'll allow for "them" as well) that authority.
There is nothing unclear in 1 Timothy 2 that I see. Paul would not suffer a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man, and he appeals to how man and woman's condition due to the Fall.
It's a false argument. I have never said women can't teach or usurp authority over a man because Eve was disobedient. For that matter, I have never said women can't teach or have authority—except in a church leadership role. That is the issue.
As to your argument: Adam's sin is not said to be the reason women are not to teach or usurp authority, Eve's deception was. The implication being, it was Eve's sin that brought about the conditions God set as a result of that sin. It's a little difficult to think Adam wouldn't have mentioned to her she could not eat of that fruit, thus it reasonable to view Eve's actions as sin.
Again, not relevant. Sin is sin even if it is committed without knowledge. That is why we see reference to sacrifice for sin committed without knowledge. This argument fails to change Paul's teaching as well.
Maybe if she had learned in silence that wouldn't have happened?
Is there a lesson to be learned there?
You might consider that the deception in view is not due to Eve's ignorance about the fruit, that is plainly incorrect. Regardless of her response to Satan, she knew the fruit was forbidden. Doesn't matter that she muffed the particulars.
The deception was more likely the result Satan promised. And the fact is, Eve did become like God, to know good and evil experientially. The naive caricature many have of probably the most intelligent woman to have ever lived is sad. But what we can say, she knew good from bad, hence her initial objection.
I actually invited you to expound on the reason, hence my question concerning Genesis 3.
Again, the salvation in view is not salvific. It is in a temporal context woman shall be saved. In other words, "Eve, the sorrow you have brought upon yourself is not going to be so devastating that life is over."
I think it a good idea to take a definitive stance of an Apostle of Christ as a command. You may think God makes mistakes and has little foresight to inspire His Word to be effective for every generation and culture that will ever exist, but most don't.
That is quite obvious.
God bless.
Upvote
0
Ahem. I'm a woman.
And ... ?
It wasn't applied to anyone. It simply points out that the term priest is historically applied to men, whereas a woman in that role is called a priestess. There was also a little humor in there, as well. Very little, but humor nonetheless.
Unless you can cite a source where a woman outside of a modern assembly is called a priest, I'll stick with that.
And I'll just say, I don't appreciate being accused of flaming and slurring other members.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,307
- 19,836
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Did you not suggest that my post was a "man's teaching"?
No. We are not priestesses. We are priests.
The only people who call Christian clergy "priestesses," do so to imply that our ministry is different from that of men, and to suggest Pagan associations with it. Both of which are pejorative, and therefore flaming.
I was attempting to give you a friendly heads up, because a lot of people throw that word around without realising how profoundly demeaning it is. But if you'd rather, I can just hit the report button next time.
Upvote
0
Say? There's nothing you can say about a statement like that. What is in need is remorse.
And it has been addressed.
It was probably Adam that said, "Eve—don't even touch it!"
She still knew she wasn't supposed to eat of the fruit.
And you missed the point. You're still missing the point.
You're trying to justify your position. No shame in that, so am I. The shame is in how you are doing it.
Well, I'll again remind you that my own perspective deals specifically with a context of women holding a position of leadership over men in the church.
Completely different economy.
And ...?
How often did someone call for them to help with the dishes?
The woman at the well seemed to know about Messiah. Timothy was taught by women. Not sure what point you think you're making.
You did, actually. By saying God made a mistake " ... because there are female bishops," that is precisely what you said.
I agree: it is a command to the fellas.
Bow to a woman? Never!
Just kidding.
I'm actually enjoying the discussion, but my computer seems to act a little buggy on this forum, which may be due to the ads, as well as my own service. It is being extremely uncooperative this morning, and I again apologize for not enlarging the text in the Scripture presented.
As I said before, your conviction that women should be in leadership roles over men is something between you and the Lord. I merely present the reasoning why I do not take that view. I will say that the reasoning behind the basis for your position lacks sufficient strength, and that is just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth, which isn't much.
God bless.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oh, I get it, lol.
Yes, I did assume that your name was masculine.
That's great. Doesn't mean it changes the historical use of the term. I'm not a part of your system, and view your interaction in this discussion to look suspiciously like an attempt to disrupt conversation by seeking to cast someone in a bad light.
There is no female "priest" in my view. Again, I ask you to cite a source outside of a modern system.
I also invite you to address the arguments presented to justify my own view.
If you don't want to participate in the discussion, move on. Don't try to censor those who believe differently than you. And please, don't make allegations that are false.
Sorry, but the use of the term priestess is not used, at any time, in my own posting as a slur. It is a simple statement of fact that priest is masculine, priestess is feminine.
Just because your system has a conflict with the term is not my fault.
So I see no reasoning in either case: I didn't flame or slur, and it is a pity you have to use a masculine term because the feminine has such a negative connotation in historical (as well as modern) religion.
No, it wasn't a friendly heads up, it was an attempt to interact in a discussion in a way that is contrary to Christian Doctrine and Discussion. You seek to silence those who hold a differing view by getting them in trouble, rather than engaging in a debate the way people should. That is, present your arguments, address theirs.
So, hit the report button, if you feel the necessity. I have said nothing intended to offend an antagonist, and if that isn't clear in my posts, then it should be brought to my attention that I might consider the allegation. Just as you have done in regards to the term priestess.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hello, Der Alte, I'm not sure what it is in this that changes that Paul did not suffer a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. In fact, I don't even see why "a position of independent authority" is relevant, when Paul uses the consequence imposed on the woman as the reasoning why he does not suffer it.
Perhaps you could expand a little on your reasoning.
Being "southern" is not really something relevant to denomination, as there are many in the south who feel women can be Pastors. So are you talking about the Southern Baptists? Those denominations that have traditionally taken the position that the leadership role is to be held by men, who affiliate with groups that reject female pastors, then decide they are going to change their position—kick themselves out.
If a Mormon assembly decided to reject the teaching of Joseph Smith, could they still properly be called Mormons?
If a Catholic assembly decided that Eternal Salvation and Sola Scriptura are valid doctrinal positions, should they still be considered a part of Catholicism?
What might be relevant is, what happened? Did they take on a female pastor and leave whatever group they affiliated with, or did they maintain their traditional position?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
