# Female Pastor...Biblical or UnBiblical?



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Saw the other post about the VP/Pres and didn't want to hijack it, so here's a new thread.

Is it okay Biblically for there to be a woman preacher/pastor/leader in the church?  

Okay for a woman to teach men?  Okay for a woman to teach other women?  Okay for a woman to be the music pastor?  The children's pastor?  

Thoughts?  Input?  Scripture to approve/disapprove?


----------



## crackerdave (Aug 29, 2008)

Here we go again!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 29, 2008)

All I have to say is "Husband of one wife"

PLAY NICE!


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> All I have to say is "Husband of one wife"
> 
> PLAY NICE!



So does that mean Rosie can be a pastor?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 29, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> So does that mean Rosie can be a pastor?




Nope, Rosie cannot be a pastor.  But there are great things she can do for the Lord.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

Well, it was my post that started this.  So I'll go.

No, I have no issues.  I think that there is a clear distinction between a woman taking a leadership position in the church because the men in the church fail to step up and do it and a woman being called to the ministry.  I think there is a HUGE difference there.

But I think of women like Beth Moore or Kay Arthur....I'm firmly of the opinion that God clearly called them to the ministry.  

and yes, men can like Beth Moore too!


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Well, it was my post that started this.  So I'll go.
> 
> No, I have no issues.  I think that there is a clear distinction between a woman taking a leadership position in the church because the men in the church fail to step up and do it and a woman being called to the ministry.  I think there is a HUGE difference there.
> 
> ...



So are you saying that Beth Moore is Biblically eligible to be the Senior pastor of your church?  What about music pastor?  What about Sunday School teacher for older folks?  What about Children's Pastor?  What about children's sunday school teacher?

Again, I'm not trying to stir the pot, just trying to get clarification on your post.  Ministry and senior pastor can be two totally different things.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

Yes...that's what I'm saying.  Not trying to stir the pot either.  That's just my opinion on the subject.  Yes, she can serve in any of those roles if she is called by God to do so.

She would do a MUCH better job and service to the Kingdom than most of the male senior pastors I've ever run across.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Aug 29, 2008)

Anyone can be called to be a minister, regardless of sex!


----------



## crackerdave (Aug 29, 2008)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Anyone can be called to be a minister, regardless of sex!



That's true - and every follower of Jesus should minister to others. I just don't think it's biblical for a woman to be the leader of a church that has male members.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Yes...that's what I'm saying.  Not trying to stir the pot either.  That's just my opinion on the subject.  Yes, she can serve in any of those roles if she is called by God to do so.
> 
> She would do a MUCH better job and service to the Kingdom than most of the male senior pastors I've ever run across.





Jeff Phillips said:


> Anyone can be called to be a minister, regardless of sex!



So how do you explain I Tim 2:12?
12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

rangerdave said:


> That's true - and every follower of Jesus should minister to others. I just don't think it's biblical for a woman to be the leader of a church that has male members.




Yep. That is plain and clear in Scripture.


----------



## 73fordxlt (Aug 29, 2008)

also 1 cor. 14  states the silence of a woman in church


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 29, 2008)

73fordxlt said:


> also 1 cor. 14 states the silence of a woman in church


 

That is practiced at my church and so is Head coverings for women... ut oh, I am probably going to get  for this one....

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> That is practiced at my church and so is Head coverings for women... ut oh, I am probably going to get  for this one....
> 
> DB BB



Uh oh...DB BB, I think we've come to the first time where you and I don't agree

Not that I have a problem with it....there was a church that I was a part of where a woman put a covering on her head during the sermon.  Didn't bother me one bit.  I just don't think it is a Biblical mandate.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 29, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Uh oh...DB BB, I think we've come to the first time where you and I don't agree
> 
> Not that I have a problem with it....there was a church that I was a part of where a woman put a covering on her head during the sermon. Didn't bother me one bit. I just don't think it is a Biblical mandate.


 
There is bound to be something we don't agree on... 

I believe it is an act of submission... I have been talking to my Girls 10 and 7 that it is respectful to me and to God to cover your heads during worship...

DB BB


----------



## 73fordxlt (Aug 29, 2008)

1 Corinthians 14:34,35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 4:34-35       

 1 Timothy 2:11,12 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I believe women can teach to children, not to men. I think that women can give their testimonies in church to help other people.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

73fordxlt said:


> I believe women can teach to children, not to men. I think that women can give their testimonies in church to help other people.



But if they are to learn in silence...if they are not allowed to speak, then how would you suggest they do that?

We've already learned that sign language is not acceptable to God. 


I'll get my reasons together for you guys.  I don't have time to do it right now.  But I will say that many books were written to address either specific situations or specific questions that a congregation had.  Every verse in those books has to be read in the context of why the book was written.  You cannot pull one verse out and hold it up individually IMO.


----------



## 73fordxlt (Aug 29, 2008)

okay


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> You cannot pull one verse out and hold it up individually IMO.



I totally agree, but don't see how there is any other verses that go contrary.

Also, if you want to try and look at circumstances, there was no woman disciples...no woman chosen to lead one of the early churches.

However, their are plenty of women that God used and had a purpose for.  See Rahab, Ruth, Esther to name a few.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll get my reasons together for you guys.  I don't have time to do it right now.  But I will say that many books were written to address either specific situations or specific questions that a congregation had.  Every verse in those books has to be read in the context of why the book was written.  You cannot pull one verse out and hold it up individually IMO.



Or, you can take Scripture for face value. When it says husband of one wife, you can read the Book and just accept that it means "husband" which means "man". Too many people try to "justify" their position or to come up with ways to twist Scripture to their own personal needs.

We're not talking about some topics that are hard to get or understand sometimes like Election and Trinity and Rapture. We are talking about plain language "Husband of one wife".

But, do get your references and such. Will be interesting to read it I am sure.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

Wow!  Didn't know that was gonna press such a hot button Mr. Mod.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Wow!  Didn't know that was gonna press such a hot button Mr. Mod.



Not hot. Not really anyway. Just been listening to that view point for a long time.

Please post your references.

Oh, it's PWalls by the way. My "Mod" status has nothing to do with my belief in Scripture or participation in this thread.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

Didn't say it did.  Accusations of twisting scripture to fit personal belief are a pretty big deal though.  I didn't post my reasons because I wanted to get my thoughts together.  I'll get 'em up here and you guys can commence to tearing them apart.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 29, 2008)

73fordxlt said:


> 1 Corinthians 14:34,35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 4:34-35
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:11,12 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.



That's disgusting.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll get 'em up here and you guys can commence to tearing them apart.




Sounds like a challenge to me.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll get 'em up here and you guys can commence to tearing them apart.



I'm waiting

Now, just get them up before I leave work...you know, my wife isn't as generous with me wasting time on the internet as my employer is


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

How 'bout one at a time?  It'll make it sporting!

1 Tim 3:11 refers to women.  The entire section from 3:1-12 is devoted to "overseers and deacons".  I know that is a man-made section heading, so let's not go there. 

But why does vs 11 show up in the middle of all of that?  

"In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything."

vs 12 goes on to say that a deacon must be faithful to his wife, etc etc. and you guys would say THAT proves only men can be deacons.  But I would ask why is vs 11 in there if he is talking about "qualifications for overseers and deacons"?  

I think that men were typically chosen as leaders in the church, as is typical now and so he speaks in masculine terms.  It was the preferred situation....as it is now.  But when that did not happen (for whatever reason) Paul gives instruction for women in that role.  I would say that you can read the "husband of one wife" or "faithful to his wife" as spouse (insert dog pile here!!!!).

This would be reason number one.  I'll try to get to others as I can.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> How 'bout one at a time?  It'll make it sporting!
> 
> 1 Tim 3:11 refers to women.  The entire section from 3:1-12 is devoted to "overseers and deacons".  I know that is a man-made section heading, so let's not go there.
> 
> ...



Uhhh. Verse 11 does not say "the women". It says "their wives". That puts it back into the proper perspective wouldn't you say.

What version of Scripture are you reading from?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

Depends on which translation you have.  Mine says "women" (NIV).  

Things are lost in translation, wouldn't you agree?  The greek is not entirely clear what Paul was intending.  It is translated differently in different versions for that very reason.


There are lots of things in just this book that would be tough to explain.  How about widows?  Are widows today to never remarry?  That's what Paul says in 1 Tim.  

"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."  Is this passage only directed at the audience?  Probably.  

How about hair care and jewlery?  Are those passages in the first chapter supposed to be followed to the letter or were they addressed to those people at that time?  No gold?  No pearls?  I would submit that ALL OF US are violating that one right there.  Anybody never bought gold or pearls for your wife?

I suppose you could say that I believe that the "letters" are just that....letters.  They were written to a specific people at a specific time.  They contain some of the most precious biblical truths.  But they also need to be read and understood in the context in which they were written.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Depends on which translation you have.  Mine says "women".
> 
> Things are lost in translation, wouldn't you agree?  The greek is not entirely clear what Paul was intending.  It is translated differently in different versions for that very reason.



That's why I asked the question. What version are you reading from?


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

As a woman, I would love to comment on this...  I believe one of the many scriptures has been posted:

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

That should settle the issue.  Women are NOT allowed to hold any position of authority in the Church.  They are NOT allowed to teach men in the Church; that includes Beth Moore and Kay Arthur.  Women are to teach children and other women.

I love discussing the Scriptures with both men and women.  I think this blog evidences this.  However, I would NEVER want to hold an office at church, or teach men, because the Scriptures don't allow it.  I have no problem with that whatsoever.  I am called to be a help meet to my husband, and a mother to my children.  This is how I serve the Lord in the capacity in which He has called me.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> As a woman, I would love to comment on this...  I believe one of the many scriptures has been posted:
> 
> "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
> 
> ...



Excellent grasp of Scripture (except for that whole TULIP thing ).

Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

As to head coverings...  

I remember hearing different things about this. There were temple priestesses who were converted.  They shaved their heads while "working" in the temple.  Perhaps this is why women were told to cover their heads.

I have heard it said that a woman's hair is her head covering.

I have also heard that if a woman is under the authority of her husband or father, then her head is "covered."  

I haven't looked into this in a while.


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

Pwalls,

Thanks...  maybe we could get you to come around concerning the TULIP thing????


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Pwalls,
> 
> Thanks...  maybe we could get you to come around concerning the TULIP thing????




DBBB has been working on me for a long time.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> As to head coverings...
> 
> I remember hearing different things about this. There were temple priestesses who were converted.  They shaved their heads while "working" in the temple.  Perhaps this is why women were told to cover their heads.
> 
> ...




So, banjo, if I'm reading your posts right you're ok with NOT using a literal interpretation here....but not in the other case?

Not trying to be antagonistic on this.  I'm just curious.  Why the apparent difference?  It seems like you said about women "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles that."

But in the case of head covering, you seem to say "well, maybe we need to interpret that.  Maybe it doesn't REALLY mean that".

That's how it appears don't you think?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> That's why I asked the question. What version are you reading from?



Sorry.  I added it to my response up there.  It's the NIV.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> As a woman, I would love to comment on this... I believe one of the many scriptures has been posted:
> 
> "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
> 
> ...


 
Can a woman be a pastor. No.

2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

Can a woman lead music, teach, etc. Yes.

 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

To me there is a world of difference in these two scriptures. One is directed by God, the other is a personal preference.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> DBBB has been working on me for a long time.


 

I have already got him to admit he is a "closet calvinist"... it has taken awhile...



PWalls said:


> Alright, I'll confess to a little closet Calvinism here.


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntin...

The reason I know that women are NOT to be in positions of authority of the Church is this:

I Tim. 2:11-14....

Look at 13 and 14:

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

This is a mandate that dates back to Creation and the Fall.  It is not a cultural thing, or a lack of education for women.  It is the way God intended it, even from the beginning.  

There were no female priests in the Old Testament.  

Perhaps the head covering issue was a cultural thing.  Or, as I stated, a woman's hair or husband's authority IS her head covering.  I would have to go back and study this again...


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

farmasis:



> To me there is a world of difference in these two scriptures. One is directed by God, the other is a personal preference.



I may not be following you on this.  

ALL Scripture is mandated by God.  When Paul wrote those words, it was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  One verse is as authoritative as any other verse in the Bible.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

and what about gold jewlery or pearls?  As I mentioned before, those are in 1 Tim as well.  Are women really not supposed to wear those?  

I'm just trying to get people to think a little about the entire context of the book.  I'm not calling you out banjo.  So I hope you know that. 

I'm just asking questions as I get responses.  

If the "No women pastors" thing in vs 11 is literally interpreted and not a cultural thing, then why in the world are we allowed to take any other passage in that book in the context of "it was just a cultural thing"?  I'm asking because I don't get it?


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Sorry.  I added it to my response up there.  It's the NIV.



My NIV (non-inspired version - JK - ) is at the house so I "googled" 1 Timothy 3:11 in the NIV.

It says:

_In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything._


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> farmasis:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
To me it is clear Paul is stating his opinion and personal preference.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> If the "No women pastors" thing in vs 11 is literally interpreted and not a cultural thing, then why in the world are we allowed to take any other passage in that book in the context of "it was just a cultural thing"?



Examples?


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

farmasis said:


> To me it is clear Paul is stating his opinion and personal preference.



Scripture is INSPIRED. To me that means there was no human "preference" or "opinion" put in there. As awesome a man as Paul was, when he wrote those letters, there was nothing of him in it. God inspired him on what to write.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

The head covering or the jewlery.  Those are the examples.  Or what about widows not marrying?


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntin,

I don't feel called out at all.  There are several places in the Bible that prohibit women from holding office in the church.  Scripture must always interpret Scripture.  We also have the Lord's example.  While women were not excluded from sitting at Christ's feet and learning, or conversing with Him, only MEN were called to be the apostles.  

I do understand why you are asking this question.  I don't have any easy answer for that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> My NIV (non-inspired version - JK - ) is at the house so I "googled" 1 Timothy 3:11 in the NIV.
> 
> It says:
> 
> _In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything._



I don't have mine with me either.  But here is the official NIV site (whatever that means) and this is the verse and footnote that goes with it.

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?tniv=yes&q=1 Timothy 3

_11 In the same way, the women * are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. *_*

1 Timothy 3:11  Probably women who are deacons, or possibly deacons' wives*


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> The head covering or the jewlery.  Those are the examples.  Or what about widows not marrying?



OK, so why do you think those are cultural issues instead of exactly what it says? Why cast them off out of hand as cultural issues without considering that God may mean them exactly that way? Why not consider that maybe our culture and interpretation of that is what is wrong?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo,

That's a good enough answer for me.  "I don't know" is a fine answer.

I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other on the women as pastors question.  I lean in the direction I'm arguing right now.  But I don't pretend to have all the answers either.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> OK, so why do you think those are cultural issues instead of exactly what it says? Why cast them off out of hand as cultural issues without considering that God may mean them exactly that way? Why not consider that maybe our culture and interpretation of that is what is wrong?



What is your wife's wedding band made of?

Ever buy her pearls?

Ever buy her expensive clothes?

Those are all seemingly prohibited.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> _1 Timothy 3:11  Probably women who are deacons, or possibly deacons' wives_



OK. Ignoring the "probably" and "possibly" opinions in that statement you found, look further.

Looking at all the rest of the Scripture, you would have to agree that deacons' wives is more accurate an interpretation.


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

> To me it is clear Paul is stating his opinion and personal preference.



This is dangerous thinking.... I guess then each individual gets to decide for him or herself which verses are opinions and therefore optional????

ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for our teaching, correction, rebuking and edification.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> What is your wife's wedding band made of?
> 
> Ever buy her pearls?



She doesn't wear one.

No.

And, I have purchased her jewelry before, but she doesn't wear it.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This is dangerous thinking.... I guess then each individual gets to decide for him or herself which verses are opinions and therefore optional????
> 
> ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for our teaching, correction, rebuking and edification.



Bingo Banjo!!!!!


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> What is your wife's wedding band made of?
> 
> Ever buy her pearls?
> 
> ...



You didn't answer my questions though.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

I'd say you're the exception then.  So let me turn it around.  Am I breaking biblical commands because I HAVE bought my wife pearls?  Because she DOES wear a gold wedding ring?

Would we say that?  I've bought her some VERY expensive clothes before.  Is that going against scripture?

I'm asking these questions for a reason.  If everything is inspired and literal, then everything must be read literally and applied exactly today as it was then, don't you think?


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This is dangerous thinking.... I guess then each individual gets to decide for him or herself which verses are opinions and therefore optional????
> 
> ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for our teaching, correction, rebuking and edification.


 
No, it is plainly stated.

In my opinion you have decided for yourself issues of calvanism, post tribulation, etc that is not in the Bible.

Had Paul said, a woman should not be such and such, then I would agree with you.

Paul surely agrees that women can serve in the church.

 1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also. (Romans 16)


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> You didn't answer my questions though.



Which ones?  The interpretation of women or wives?  I honestly don't know.  

I know there are some that would say the greek doesn't have a word for wife (I think that's right) and so the interpreters had to do just that "interpret" what they thought the author was trying to get at.

I honestly don't know.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Paul surely agrees that women can serve in the church.
> 
> 1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also. (Romans 16)



He didn't say they were to be Pastors or Deacons or in positions of authority.

They can be messengers, teachers of children, teachers of other women, etc.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Which ones?  The interpretation of women or wives?  I honestly don't know.
> 
> I know there are some that would say the greek doesn't have a word for wife (I think that's right) and so the interpreters had to do just that "interpret" what they thought the author was trying to get at.
> 
> I honestly don't know.



I agree. When issues of "translation" come up, then we have to fall back on "context". I think Scripture is very clear in context about who can or can't be a Pastor or Deacon based on other supporting Scripture.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> He didn't say they were to be Pastors or Deacons or in positions of authority.
> 
> They can be messengers, teachers of children, teachers of other women, etc.


 
I didn't say she was a preacher.

But guess what Greek word was translated servant?

Diakonos

Guess what Greek word was used in 1 Tim 3:12?

Diakonos


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I didn't say she was a preacher.




OK. So what is your point then. I have gotten lost in responses here.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Which ones?  The interpretation of women or wives?  I honestly don't know.



_OK, so why do you think those are cultural issues instead of exactly what it says? Why cast them off out of hand as cultural issues without considering that God may mean them exactly that way? Why not consider that maybe our culture and interpretation of that is what is wrong?_


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

and I think....well I think I'm not entirely sure.  Just think of me as a pusher.  I'm trying to push you guys to think about your positions just for the sake of being further convinced I guess.

I still don't think anybody has answered my question very well about the other things in the book.  My guess is that most people (pwalls excluded) would agree that gold, pearls and expensive clothes are not sinful and neither is a widow remarrying.

So why are certain passages literal and others are not?


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> My guess is that most people (pwalls excluded) would agree that gold, pearls and expensive clothes are not sinful



Honestly, that is my wife's decision more than mine. She is the one that doesn't want to wear jewelry. I would like her to wear a wedding band. She has an engagement ring. She just has never been fascinated with jewelry. She definately doesn't need it to make her more beautiful.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> OK. So what is your point then. I have gotten lost in responses here.


 


But guess what Greek word was translated servant?

Diakonos

Guess what Greek word was used in 1 Tim 3:12?

Diakonos

The same greek word for deacon is used here as servant.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This is dangerous thinking.... I guess then each individual gets to decide for him or herself which verses are opinions and therefore optional????
> 
> ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for our teaching, correction, rebuking and edification.


 
Banjo, are you instructing me on scripture?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 29, 2008)

I agree...but is it sinful?  Is it against the inspired Word of God?  Don't make me accuse you of dodging the question!


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I agree...but is it sinful?  Is it against the inspired Word of God?  Don't make me accuse you of dodging the question!



Is it the inspired Word of God? Yes
Is wearing jewelry a sin? I have not researched that enough. Again, you must use iron to sharpen iron. That means study that question and use other Scripture to help you get the answer. I have not done that on this topic so I can't answer that.

I hope that was not a dodge. If so, I apologize.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 29, 2008)

farmasis said:


> But guess what Greek word was translated servant?
> 
> Diakonos
> 
> ...



So, everywhere Diakonos is used it means servant and everywhere servant is used it means Deacon?

Context must be the rule.


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

No friend....  we are discussing it.  I am presenting my side for your consideration.  Also, this is not a church setting, nor do I have any kind of authority over the men here.  

By the way... have I mentioned to you all that I really enjoy quail hunting. Farmasis, I see you are a deer man.  Huntinfool, based on your quote I think turkeys are your prey of choice (my husband's as well).


----------



## toddboucher (Aug 29, 2008)

pastor NO, but we hashed this over many times. Teacher I have no problem with, the wife get stuff from Beth moore and kay Auther both are real good.


----------



## Lead Poison (Aug 29, 2008)

I don't have a concern with a woman in political office, provided she has the "right" views on matters!

However, when it comes to being pastors and the head of the a church, I believe this position should be a man.


----------



## crackerdave (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> OK. So what is your point then. I have gotten lost in responses here.



HALLELUJAH!!!  I'm not the only one that gets dizzy from running down all these multi-quote rabbit-trails we always see around here. Some folks [not naming names/making "personal attacks"] have the attention span of a two year old,when it comes to staying on topic.  What do you think,topcat?


----------



## Mako22 (Aug 29, 2008)

The final authority (B.I.B.L.E.)says no to women Pastors.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

PWalls said:


> So, everywhere Diakonos is used it means servant and everywhere servant is used it means Deacon?
> 
> Context must be the rule.


 
No, the point is we don't know what role Phoebe had in the church. She was entrusted to deliver the letter, but was she only a messenger? I don't know but she was in the same level of position as a deacon.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> No friend.... we are discussing it. I am presenting my side for your consideration. Also, this is not a church setting, nor do I have any kind of authority over the men here.
> 
> By the way... have I mentioned to you all that I really enjoy quail hunting. Farmasis, I see you are a deer man. Huntinfool, based on your quote I think turkeys are your prey of choice (my husband's as well).


 

Deer and turkey here.

Ahhh, so it only applies in a church setting. It did seem like you were instructing in scripture to men. I am just picking at you a little.


----------



## Banjo (Aug 29, 2008)

Farmasis,

Well... you can pick on me just a little...

Is there a difference between instructing and discussing/debating?  The first requires a teacher and pupils; the second is just a "level playing field" so to speak.

When I read I Tim. 2:8 - 15, I believe it is dealing with the roles of men and women in church.  However, I don't think it permissible for a woman to set up her own ministry outside of the authority of a church, and teach men.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Is there a difference between instructing and discussing/debating? The first requires a teacher and pupils; the second is just a "level playing field" so to speak.


 

Sometimes it is not so Level a playing field!!!  

I AM JUST JOKING GUYS/GALS!!!! IT'S FRIDAY!!!

Oh No, I know it is coming....


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 29, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Sorry.  I added it to my response up there.  It's the NIV.





PWalls said:


> My NIV (non-inspired version - JK - )




PWalls & Huntinfool, 
The same thing came to my mind when Huntinfool quoted the passage...as far as the translation...I figured it was the NIV.  Almost put the Not Inspired Version up as well, but didn't want to stir the pot any more than I have in the past....I'm slowly learning

I will say, it is a shame...a small one, but a shame that the NIV is the most common version out there.  If you research the translation, the authors worked hard to make the english text flow and sacrificed some of the interpretation to make it so.  

I know that this is a little bit of a hi-jack, but I would recommend the NAS (New American Standard).  I think it does a great job of keeping the original meaning as well as readability.  The problem was that the Holman (I think) foundation who owned the translation was too busy trying to make a profit than worrying about getting the Bible into as many hands as possible.

Another short plug...there is a Bible out there that is the Greek/Hebrew Study bible and has a lot of the key words in Hebrew and Greek along with a short dictionary in the back.  Makes for a great study tool.


----------



## fishbum2000 (Aug 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Paul surely agrees that women can serve in the church.
> 
> 1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also. (Romans 16)





PWalls said:


> He didn't say they were to be Pastors or Deacons or in positions of authority.
> 
> They can be messengers, teachers of children, teachers of other women, etc.



as usual i'm comming in a little late here but i use the amplified bible and it reads:
rom 16:1
Now I introduce  and commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deconess of the church at Cenchreae,
2  that you may receive her in the Lord[ with a christian welcome]


also lets remember who was the first ones that the Lord appeared to after the resurection, it was a couple of women. imho there was a reason for this and it wasnt just because they were the first at the tomb.   i think that if the Lord calls you it dosent matter who or what you are you better anwser or it will be a long hard walk.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 30, 2008)

rj, thanks for the thoughts on the NIV.  Like most, it's the one I prefer because I grew up with it, my dad uses it and I like it too.  I've got other translations. 

But, like I said earlier, they are all just translations.  None of them capture all of the true meanings of every single word.  That's why they are called "translations".


----------



## fishndinty (Aug 30, 2008)

What about Priscilla?  She was the head of a group of believers at Ephesus (male and female) in the early church along with her husband,  Aquila.  Paul taught BOTH of them all he knew of Christ, and they shared with others.

We must also remember that society itself has become far less patriarchal since the Bible was written, and that's a good thing.  Women tended to be uneducated and were not allowed by men to remedy that deficiency.  So, back then, it probably WAS a good idea to keep most women from speaking during church services, as none of them were allowed to attend rabbincal schools to learn scripture with the men.  There are plenty of male members of this forum who by that standard should never speak a word in a church service either!

Nowadays, a woman can go to any theological seminary and learn alongside the men.  I am all in favor of it.


----------



## yellowhammer (Aug 30, 2008)

*Women Pastors*

If a woman is called,by God, to preach,only two minds will know this.Her and God.And He ain`t gonna go through any of the legalistic lawyers on this forum.The third Testament ain`t been written yet,but we are living it.Who knows what it will say.The New Testament made changes from the Old,and maybe the Third will have some changes.ALL of the humans will not be killed during Armageddon,etc.Humans will still inhabit the earth and may have a Third Testament to study.The survivors will also have the actual words of Jesus in their ears.If a saved woman leads a male heathen to Christ,I fail to see any wrong.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 30, 2008)

yellowhammer said:


> If a saved woman leads a male heathen to Christ,I fail to see any wrong.



I think this is the only thing that I agree with in your post.

See guys..I really am working on the agreeing thing.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> Nowadays, a woman can go to any theological seminary and learn alongside the men.  I am all in favor of it.



That brings up an interesting question.  Are there any seminaries that will not accept women into an mdiv or dmin program because of this belief?  

Which denominations specifically prohibit women pastors?

Although the degree does not equal pastorship, certainly there are women professors out there teaching men (who are about to enter the pastorate) about how to be preachers.  A little ironic given the fact that women are not to be teaching men about the things of God, don't you think?  Certainly we would associate teaching in a seminary to teaching in a church, right?  Same purpose?  Training the pastors?

Anybody have thoughts on that?  If seminaries don't have an issue with women teaching men, don't you think they've researched this issue fairly deeply?

I would guess there are some that only have male professors.  Not sure about that.


----------



## Jay Hughes (Sep 2, 2008)

You know, after reading some of your posts on here, why don't you just throw your Bibles away and do what you want to do because that sounds like what you are doing anyways.

If you don't believe what the Bible says, why have one.

I really don't understand that way of thinking.  Well, I think that we should do this, but not this.

Simply put, If the Bible says it, DO IT!

You can't pick and choose what to do and what not to do.

Acts 8:26-31

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 
31 And he said, How can I, except SOME MAN SHOULD guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 

Notice he didn't say except some person should guide me, but some MAN.

Notice it takes a preacher to expound the Word of God to us.  Romans 10 How shall they hear without a Preacher.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

Jay Hughes said:


> You know, after reading some of your posts on here, why don't you just throw your Bibles away and do what you want to do because that sounds like what you are doing anyways.
> 
> If you don't believe what the Bible says, why have one.
> 
> ...



Again, I'll ask you this question (which nobody seems to want to answer)...

Is it sinful to wear gold jewlery?  Or wear pearls?  

Because "if the Bible says it DO IT" right?  I could list a hundred passages that YOU would turn around and say, "well that's just for the times back then" because they don't fit what you WANT them to say.

Answer me sir! Does your wife, mother, daughter, aunt, sister, etc wear gold jewlery or pearls?  Do they cover their head?.....or is there something to be read into the situation that this particular letter was trying to address?

Do you condemn them as being sinful?  It's right there in 1 Tim and "the Bible says it"....so you better do it, right?  You can't "pick and choose", right?  Or are we just supposed to follow the "big stuff"?

Some of this stuff will never be resolved this side of heaven.  I'm just asking the questions that I have.  If everything is to be literally taken today as it was then, then shouldn't we follow EVERYTHING????

We cannot pick and choose.  You guys who are insisting this better be following the letter of the Book to the letter if you're gonna come down hardline on something.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here.  But you guys keep touting that every single word is to be literally extrapolated out and lived today as it was then.  I agree that every word is God breathed.  But I also believe that there are some things that have to be looked at culturally.  Not that they aren't or weren't true.  But to the degree of the MESSAGE that they were conveying.  

Back then women were to stay covered and they weren't to wear fancy jewlery or they would be mistaken as prostitutes or unclean.  That is not the case today (at least I hope not).  The point was not to present yourself in a light that you shouldn't be presented in.  The point was not, for all eternity, that women should cover their heads.  The point was "be mindful of how you present yourself".  

You guys will have a lot of years to try to convince me otherwise...I'll be here for a while.  But you're gonna have to step it up a little.  I'm a preacher's kid.  I've heard it all my entire life.  Been there every time the door opened.  But I've also seen the hypocrisy  that the outside world sees and I've seen the damage that can be done by the church.  So the typical "because that's how I read it, so it must be right" response is not gonna float.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> That brings up an interesting question.  Are there any seminaries that will not accept women into an mdiv or dmin program because of this belief?
> 
> Which denominations specifically prohibit women pastors?
> 
> ...




I know of atleast one.  The Master's Seminary.

www.TMS.edu

It is Dr. John MacArthur's seminary and I agree with the position that they have taken....No women students, no women professors, no woman pastors.  It is my understanding that they will allow a woman to sit in on the classes, but they can't receive course credit.

And yes, it is amazing some of the garbage that is taught at the seminary's of many large denominations.  Fortunately, some seem to be getting back on track, but others still are going the way of schools such as Princeton and other great Christian Theological schools of the past.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

I did a quick search and it does seem that more of them prohibit women teachers than don't.  I was a little surprised by that.

Seems to fall in line with the thinking of most that have posted to the thread.  I've actually gotten away from the original argument, so I'll quit or start a new thread.  

I'm now more interested in whether you guys who are convinced that everything is exactly literaly actually live that out.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm now more interested in whether you guys who are convinced that everything is exactly literaly actually live that out.



Just remember this....and it is what helps me when reading scripture and determining translation/application etc etc.

"Context is King"

Get to know the history of the book, who it was written to, the time of its authorship, things that the church was struggling with etc etc and it will solve a lot of these issues for you.  This is why a study bible at the least, or a good commentary at the best comes in handy when looking at these seemingly difficult areas.


----------



## SBG (Sep 2, 2008)

Unbiblical


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

I agree with you buddy.  That why the statement "if the Bible says it, DO IT" erks me a little.  There is no room for context in that statement.  I'm not trying to convinc anybody of whether women should or shouldn't be pastors.  I'm trying to get people to look at their REASONS for believing it.  If it's just because the word "man" is used, I don't think that's enough.

But I'll move on.  Got some ideas for other threads that I may start.  Thanks for the discussions guys.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

SBG said:


> Unbiblical



Excellent and very informative post.  Thanks for the insight.



(and yes, I did use the little emoticon thingys to make fun of you again...sorry about that.  Couldn't resist)


----------



## Jay Hughes (Sep 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Again, I'll ask you this question (which nobody seems to want to answer)...
> 
> Is it sinful to wear gold jewlery?  Or wear pearls?
> 
> ...



I am so sorry that you haven't been talking to someone that could enlighten you about the following verse:

I Timothy 2:9,10
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

To understand these verses, you need to look at the following verses:

I Peter 3:1-5
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 

We have to let the Bible give us the understanding.  I'm not giving you what I think but what the Bible says as it pertains to this subject.

This last place assures us that there is nothing sinful or wrong about the adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel, but how they live their lives and conduct theirselves as you will notice in the 4th verse.

Notice in these verses, Peter wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold.  If these were wrong, then they should have to go naked because he also said "the putting on of apparel" (That's clothing in case you don't know).

He wants our women to live Godly.

In other words, it's not how good you adorn yourselves, but how good you live and shine a light of Christianity that would be a good reflection of Christ.

So in answer to your question, my wife wears clothing, gold and fixes her hair to look nice and on occasion wears pearls (fake) , and I don't think that the Bible says anything that would condemn her for doing so.

God Bless and I hope that this helps.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

Jay Hughes said:


> Notice in these verses, Peter wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold.  If these were wrong, then they should have to go naked because he also said "the putting on of apparel" (That's clothing in case you don't know).
> 
> He wants our women to live Godly.
> 
> In other words, it's not how good you adorn yourselves, but how good you live and shine a light of Christianity that would be a good reflection of Christ.



So what you're saying is it has to be read in context....right?

It's not just, as you said, if the Bible says it DO IT.  It has to be read in context.  You say that Paul essentially didn't really mean not to wear gold or pearls even though that is CLEARLY what he did say.  You're saying we have to read it for the message BEHIND the words....

Because if we're not looking behind the actual words for the meaning, then we have to read it letter by letter and follow it.  If that's the case then Paul and Peter have contradicted each other...and neither of us thinks that's what happened.


----------



## Jay Hughes (Sep 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> So what you're saying is it has to be read in context....right?
> 
> It's not just, as you said, if the Bible says it DO IT.  It has to be read in context.  You say that Paul essentially didn't really mean not to wear gold or pearls even though that is CLEARLY what he did say.  You're saying we have to read it for the message BEHIND the words....
> 
> Because if we're not looking behind the actual words for the meaning, then we have to read it letter by letter and follow it.  If that's the case then Paul and Peter have contradicted each other...and neither of us thinks that's what happened.



Paul DID NOT say that is was wrong to do these things.  You think Paul would tell us to go naked?  I didn't have to look beyond what was there.

He told you what he meant and it is CLEAR. "But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.  I guess that you are too blind to see.

I'm so sorry!


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

OK man...I'm glad you have all the answers.  It's clear as day.  Right there in verse nine.  There is nothing about going naked.  It says, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"

It says don't wear gold or pearls or costly array and dress modestly.  You are interpreting the "we'd have to go naked" part of that man.  It just ain't there.  What he did say is not to adorn yourself with these things, but rather with modest apparel and good works etc which becomes a woman professing godliness.

I don't want to get into more of an argument and since you're clearly upset and getting more condescending by the post, I'll quit.


----------



## Jay Hughes (Sep 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> OK man...I'm glad you have all the answers.  It's clear as day.  Right there in verse nine.  There is nothing about going naked.  It says, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"
> 
> It says don't wear gold or pearls or costly array and dress modestly.  You are interpreting the "we'd have to go naked" part of that man.  It just ain't there.  What he did say is not to adorn yourself with these things, but rather with modest apparel and good works etc which becomes a woman professing godliness.
> 
> I don't want to get into more of an argument and since you're clearly upset and getting more condescending by the post, I'll quit.



On a different note, I wish that I could shoot groups like the one in your avatar.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

I just wish I could do it AGAIN!  Why do you think it's an avatar?   HA!


----------



## Jay Hughes (Sep 2, 2008)

farmasis said:


> To me it is clear Paul is stating his opinion and personal preference.



Do you think that he is stating his opinion in this verse and how do you think it pertains to you and your comment above?

I Corinthians 14:37,38

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


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

I think we could apply that same logic to about 99% of the posts so far in this thread.

Let not the pot call the kettle black.


----------



## Jay Hughes (Sep 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I think we could apply that same logic to about 99% of the posts so far in this thread.
> 
> Let not the pot call the kettle black.



Yes and you can take verse 38 to yourself.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

I did say 99% of the posts...I included myself.  I'm sure yours are the 1% that 38 wouldn't apply to.  Don't worry.

Clearly I don't know everything and don't have all the answers.  I'm the first to admit it.  

What's amazing to me is that I've finally found a place where so many people know everything there is to know and have never needed to re-think anything in their lives...because they've always been correct in everything they say.  That's why I'm glad to be here.

As my other thread points out...never have I seen so many "eisegesical masters".


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

Jay Hughes said:


> Yes and you can take verse 38 to yourself.



SBG....is that you???


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

Jay Hughes said:


> You know, after reading some of your posts on here, why don't you just throw your Bibles away and do what you want to do because that sounds like what you are doing anyways.
> 
> If you don't believe what the Bible says, why have one.
> 
> ...




You still haven't answered my question: what about Priscilla?  She was a preacher in the early church, and Ephesus, where she taught after being mentored by Paul, was probably the most successful of all the early churches.

But just to satisfy my curiosity, I did some digging...
Your translation: NKJV
_31 And he said, How can I, except SOME MAN SHOULD guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. _

Some other translations:
New International Version (NIV)

 31"How can I," he said, "unless SOMEONE explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

American Standard Version (ASV)

 31 And he said, How can I, except SOMEONE shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. 

There are many other translations equivalent to those I've shown; the gender neutral term "someone" is used in many translations of the text you use to pass judgment.  Whether you know it or not, the Bible as you know it has been a work that thousands of Christians have worked throughout the last 2000 years to bring you by translating and trying to transliterate in a form as uncorrupted as possible.  So which translation is the best?  I'm not sure.

All I am saying is that many great Christian scholars have decided not to use the gender-specific term there for a reason.  And they don't come to those decisions with an agenda or at random.

More food for thought...I have another historic text for you:
_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_

I guess you think the above text doesn't apply to women either...

So, care to try again?  Your next response should include some reason why Paul thought it necessary to train Priscilla as a pastor for the church at Ephesus if women are to be eschewed from leadership in the church...

Can't wait to hear back!
            -Dinty


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Again, I'll ask you this question (which nobody seems to want to answer)...
> 
> Is it sinful to wear gold jewlery?  Or wear pearls?
> 
> ...



Well played, sir!  I believe I'll just go offer a goat to the Lord as commanded by Leviticus chapter 3:

12: And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD.
13: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about.

I'm sure we all do this on a regular basis!


----------



## Banjo (Sep 2, 2008)

fishndinty...

We agree on the alcohol subject, but I have to disagree with you here.  No where in the Bible can you find a woman who pastors or officiates in worship...

Where is the Priscilla verse that you are using as your proof?


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

The text of Acts 18:

After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

 5When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.[a] 6But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

 7Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

 9One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: "Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. 10For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city." 11So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

 12While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court. 13"This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."

 14Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, "If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things." 16So he had them ejected from the court. 17Then they all turned on Sosthenes the synagogue ruler and beat him in front of the court. But Gallio showed no concern whatever.
Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos
 18Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because of a vow he had taken. 19They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined. 21But as he left, he promised, "I will come back if it is God's will." Then he set sail from Ephesus. 22When he landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch.

 23After spending some time in Antioch, Paul set out from there and traveled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

 24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor* and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

 27When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.*


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

It's clear from context (other passages, etc) that Paul left Priscilla and Aquila as the beginning of the church of Ephesus.  Later Apollos joined up and became a more vocal leader....but there is no doubt that Priscilla was instrumental in the church leadership at Ephesus


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

Paul writes:

1 Cor. 16:19  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Rom. 16: 3-4 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

It's clear that Priscilla and Aquila tutored Apollos (who some feel was the author of the book of Hebrews), and that they had a house church at their house and were "famous" Christians among the early church...

Also, it's interesting that when Priscilla is mentioned with her husband, she is always mentioned first.  This is not incidental to the translation but intentional and preserved from the early manuscript.  Many scholars believe she was the more important of the two in church leadership at Ephesus.

There's my proof...is that enough?


----------



## Banjo (Sep 2, 2008)

Not enough for me, friend.  It doesn't say that Priscilla was functioning as a minister.  My husband is a pastor, and I would say that I am a co-laborer with him, but in very different roles.  I don't teach, nor do I hold an office in our church.  I receive greetings (just like the one Paul sent the above couple) from others in our denomination....yet that doesn't distinguish me as an ordained ruler in our church.


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

There were no ordained ministers back then.  Paul was ordained as a rabbi....I fail to see your point.  It's obvious that Priscilla instructed Apollos, a man, regarding Christ...and from context it is clear that P+C ran the church of Ephesus from their house.  The early Christians were running for their lives from Roman AND Jewish persecution....they didn't have time for a church hierarchy like we have today.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 2, 2008)

Did Paul or the apostles ever lay hands on men, thus setting them apart for ministry?

I will be back shortly....duty calls.


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul seems to be setting aside distinctions between believers a bit here, wouldn't you say?

I am unaware of passages where early men were "ordained" as ministers in the Bible...perhaps you could share some?  I am not opposed to changing my view here...I do, however, see a lot of Scriptural support for it.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 2, 2008)

> I am unaware of passages where early men were "ordained" as ministers in the Bible...perhaps you could share some?



When the apostles "laid hands" on other men, it set them apart for service/ordained them.

I Tim. 5:22
Acts 6:6


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

Ok, 
So a boys' club of apostles laid hands on a few other men in some early form of ordinance...that still does not mean that no women should ever be ordained..

Society is different now, and women can learn in many seminaries along with men.  There is no biblical prohibition for this.  Some people use a passage in 1 Timothy that says : I shall not suffer for women to speak..."  A full look into the context of this verse shows it as an exhortation for a specific church in a specific societal context.  Otherwise, it would never have been given to Priscilla to teach in the home church at Ephesus, nor to instruct Apollos, a man, in the gospel.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 2, 2008)

fish....

I posted this before, but see what you can do with it:

I Tim. 2:11-14....

Look at 13 and 14:

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

This is a mandate that dates back to Creation and the Fall. It is not a cultural thing, or a lack of education for women. It is the way God intended it, even from the beginning. 

As a side, there were no female priests in the Old Testament.


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 2, 2008)

Also, in the old testament, there were animal sacrifices..why no more?  Ever heard of the New Covenant?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This is a mandate that dates back to Creation and the Fall. It is not a cultural thing, or a lack of education for women. It is the way God intended it, even from the beginning.



I'm failing to see the mandate in that.  Eve first fell into sin.  How is that a mandate for women not being pastors?

Banjo, I commend you for being strong in your convictions and in supporting your pastor husband as his helper.  That is admirable.  

As I said before, I'm still not certain where I fall on this.  I lean more toward yes than no.  But I don't see the mandate laid out there.  These verses were quoted earlier.  I just don't get it.


----------



## SBG (Sep 3, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Excellent and very informative post.  Thanks for the insight.
> 
> 
> 
> (and yes, I did use the little emoticon thingys to make fun of you again...sorry about that.  Couldn't resist)




There you go showing your "Christian" love again.

Still praying for you.


BTW, the Bible is a spiritual book that is spiritually discerned.


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 3, 2008)

SBG said:


> There you go showing your "Christian" love again.
> 
> Still praying for you.
> 
> ...



So you're saying we shouldn't try to use logic to rightly divide the Word of truth?


----------



## Banjo (Sep 3, 2008)

> Ever heard of the New Covenant?



Good Morning Fishndinty...

I am quite familiar with both the Old and the New Covenants...   and I love to discuss them.  Was the New Covenant totally NEW, in the sense of brand new, or was it an expansion of the OLD....

Remember the OLD Covenant was called an EVERLASTING one...  

Does God change?


----------



## Banjo (Sep 3, 2008)

Hey Huntin...

In I Tim. the  reason is given why women are not to be church leaders...

"Adam was formed first....the woman was deceived..."

These reasons will never change, therefore women can not teach or have authority over men in church.  It doesn't say, because women are not educated...which could change culturally.


----------



## SBG (Sep 3, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> So you're saying we shouldn't try to use logic to rightly divide the Word of truth?



I don't understand the premise of your question. I was commenting on one members lack of Christian restraint in discussions.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 3, 2008)

dress modestly... this is a big enough problem today, that it could be it's own topic...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 3, 2008)

SBG said:


> There you go showing your "Christian" love again.
> 
> Still praying for you.
> 
> ...



Geez man.  Lighten up.  I'm just messing with you.  No harm intended.  You posted a one word post.  Just thought that was funny.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Hey Huntin...
> 
> In I Tim. the  reason is given why women are not to be church leaders...
> 
> ...



Guess that's just a difference in how we read it.  I don't get that out of that verse.  Not saying you're wrong.  I just don't read it that way.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 3, 2008)

"And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  (why??)  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.  Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control."

That is how I read it....  notice the preposition "for."  It is like saying Women can't BECAUSE she was deceived...

The biggest influence a woman can have is on her own children.  I have trouble understanding why women today are so quick to turn over that influence to others.  Scarcely any great man has appeared on this earth who did not owe much, (if not most), to his mother's influence.   A pious mother is a gift from the Lord.  I may never be able to hold an office in the church, but my sons or future grandsons can....  I can devote my time and energies into raising the next generation of Godly leadership, and thus affect thousands...  

I wouldn't trade the joys of motherhood for even a pulpit, and I am thankful that Christ in His wisdom has not called me to do so.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 3, 2008)

I guess I agree with farmasis on this one.  I read that as Paul's statement of preference in that verse and as pointed specifically at the audience it was written for in order to address situations that they were facing at the time.  

I'm not, in any way, saying that it is not applicable to today's standards.  What I'm saying is that I read that in within the context of WHY he wrote that to those people.  There were issues going on in that church regarding certain women spreading lies and teaching false teachings.  I believe that is why Paul wrote that.  

As some other folks pointed out, there are other passages that would lead me to believe, in other circumstances, Paul allowed women to be in leadership roles.  

I am in full agreement that he preferred men to take the roles as often as possible.  However, when he encountered a woman who was clearly called by God as a leader and a teacher, he did not try to circumvent that authority based on his preference or some "law" that he had put into place.

Again, that's how I read it.  It doesn't put either of our salvations in danger, so I'm not terribly worried about who's right.  I'll keep reading and keep trying to discern.  Maybe I'll be convinced otherwise some day.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I wouldn't trade the joys of motherhood for even a pulpit, and I am thankful that Christ in His wisdom has not *called* me to do so.



So, Banjo, we agree that he COULD have called you to that position though? 

I know you probably just mistyped that.  I just couldn't resist getting a little dig in there.


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 3, 2008)

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Matthew 12:25). 'And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand'.

The above verse to me is a pretty strong indicator that in the church of Christ, all are equal.  The passage in 1 Tim is compelling, and troubling to me to some extent...but compared to the above, I read it best as another place where Paul simply expresses his opinion, rather than a command from the Lord.  

If Paul only gave commands and never his opinions, then marriage would be sinful according to the Lord as well (you know the passage I'm referring to).

It's obvious to me that women are being used by God greatly as pastors all over the world.  Remember that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  If God were so opposed to women pastors, why would He be working so mightily through them?


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 3, 2008)

More food for thought....here is a neat exposition by another believer of a case for women as pastors:
http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob/woman_pastor.htm

Here is an excerpt:
_1 Timothy 2:11-12— The second passage requiring attention is found in Paul’s letter to Timothy.  Paul says, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (NIV).

The question must be asked why did Paul make such a command?  The rationale for this command is found in a church crisis caused by false teaching.  Where Timothy was working was an area plagued by false teaching  (see 1 Timothy 1:3-7).  Paul wanted Timothy to combat these false teachers (see 1 Timothy 4).  Now I believe these false teachers had made inroads into the churches through the women, especially the younger women (see 5:11-15).  So Paul tells these women in this church where Timothy is working to keep silent and not to teach in order to stop the spreading of the false doctrine.  Paul says in the verses immediately following, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (vs. 13-14, NIV).  Paul, evidently, wanted the women of the church where Timothy was working to keep silent because he was afraid they would deceive someone else as Eve did.  Again Paul is giving special orders to meet a bad situation.  These orders were not for all churches of all times._


----------



## Banjo (Sep 3, 2008)

Quick thoughts...

Yes, there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek....  This is talking about salvation.  God saves people regardless of their gender or nationality.  

The marriage passage doesn't say DO NOT get married.  It says one is better to serve the Kingdom if they are not married, yet everyone was not given the gift of celibacy.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 3, 2008)

"The Gift of Celibacy"!

I don't believe I'm familiar with that spiritual gift.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 3, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> "The Gift of Celibacy"!
> 
> I don't believe I'm familiar with that spiritual gift.



Ask a catholic priest about that gift.  I know that each one of them have it.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 4, 2008)

I see a lot of "Paul wrote this and that" in this thread.

I would hope we would all agree that Paul may have been the one holding the pencil, but God is the one who told him what to write. Therefore, it is not Paul's interpretation or Paul's words or Paul's beliefs. It is God's words and God's beliefs.

There is a big difference there.

If someone reads the Bible and thinks that words in there are from a mere man (even as mature as Paul), then that person will never grasp the truth in Scripture.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

PWalls said:


> I see a lot of "Paul wrote this and that" in this thread.
> 
> I would hope we would all agree that Paul may have been the one holding the pencil, but God is the one who told him what to write. Therefore, it is not Paul's interpretation or Paul's words or Paul's beliefs. It is God's words and God's beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Banjo (Sep 4, 2008)

> So, Banjo, we agree that he COULD have called you to that position though?



I just saw this...  Hehehe....

No, He could not have called me because that would have contradicted His Word.

I once had someone tell me that they loved the Bible, they just had trouble swallowing what Paul wrote.  I told that her problem wasn't with Paul, but with the Holy Spirit as He is the one who directed Paul what to write.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

PWalls said:


> If someone reads the Bible and thinks that words in there are from a mere man (even as mature as Paul), then that person will never grasp the truth in Scripture.



The words are God inspired IMO.  Paul's words inspired by God.  Not from a mere man.  But written by one.  There is a subtle difference.  

Again, I still struggle with the question of whether each and every word is intended to be taken (without context of why it was written to the people it was originally written to) literally and then applied to the letter today as it was then.  If that's the case, then there are a LOT of things that we are doing wrong these days and you guys that would support that line of thinking are included in that.  That's not a jab.  It's just the truth.

Right now, I believe that every word is God inspired and not to be taken lightly.  But I believe that it MUST be read in the context of why it was written, laid against the rest of scripture and the message or lesson gleaned from it.  

No, Paul didn't just make this stuff up.  He was definitely inspired to write it.  I believe that.  But Paul was not essentially "possessed" by God while writing it.  He wrote it as he was inspired.  He knew who he was writing to.  He knew why he was writing it and he intended to get how God would want them to handle their situation across to them.  We, I believe, are asked to read it and seek God for what he would have us learn from what he inspired Paul to write.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

Banjo said:


> No, He could not have called me because that would have contradicted His Word.



I knew you'd say that.  Just couldn't resist a little bit of a jab there.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> The words are God inspired IMO. Paul's words inspired by God. Not from a mere man. But written by one. There is a subtle difference.


 
Correct me if I am wrong, but what I got from this post is that you believe it is inspired, but not neccessarily the actual words God told Paul to write down, in other words... The Bible is not the actual Word of God?

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

Nope, you read it wrong.  God inspired it, Paul wrote it down.  It IS the inspired word of God.  

Do I think that the conversation went like this?  "OK Paul, listen up.  Here's what I want you to write.  Let me dictate it to you."  No, I don't.

Can it not be the inspired and true word of God exactly how he would want to present it without it being dictated word for word to the author?  We may differ on that.  I absolutely believe that could be the case.  

It's hard for me to explain.  I'm not saying that, in any way, Paul deviated from what God wanted to be in any of the books he wrote.  I'll just say this.  God is a lot bigger, smarter and able than we give him credit for.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Nope, you read it wrong. God inspired it, Paul wrote it down. It IS the inspired word of God.
> 
> Do I think that the conversation went like this? "OK Paul, listen up. Here's what I want you to write. Let me dictate it to you." No, I don't.
> 
> ...


 

So it was "God inspired" but not actually "God's Words"?

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

No...you're trying to read that to accuse me of something.  But it's not there.  

I don't believe that God dictated every single word of it to Paul.  He inspired him to write what he wanted to be in there.  Hey, how's this?  Each of the gospels is written from the AUTHOR'S perspective.  Each one has elements of who the author is, his background, his education, even his citizenship perspective.  

Don't you think that if God dictated each book, they would all be from the same perspective so that every single thing matched up exactly?  No, they are written BY the authors as inspired by God but from the perspective of how they experienced each event.  But, yes, they are written in the words of the author.  No, they are not just made up books as the author saw fit.  They were inspired.  But each has its own perspective because of who the author was.  That's what I'm getting at.  God's words as inspired to and through the author.

Does that make a little bit better sense?

If God wanted to dictate it, don't you think he could have just made the Book appear in the exact form that he wanted it?  I mean, I know that's a bit mystical, but he absolutely could have done that.  Why do you suppose he used men to write it down and then a whole other set of men to decide which letters, scriptures and writings to include in the "official Bible"?  Could he not have just given it to us in full form?  I don't have the answer....but it lends itself back my "God is way bigger than we give him credit for" comment earlier.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> No...you're trying to read that to accuse me of something. But it's not there.


 
Not trying to accuse you of anything, just trying to figure out exactly what you believe...



Huntinfool said:


> I don't believe that God dictated every single word of it to Paul. He inspired him to write what he wanted to be in there. Hey, how's this? Each of the gospels is written from the AUTHOR'S perspective. Each one has elements of who the author is, his background, his education, even his citizenship perspective.


 
Yes, but we are all made in the image of God, so in some way aren't those all attributes of God? I mean the Saved person should be a Reflection of Christ/God/Holy Spirit, or we should strive to be that...



Huntinfool said:


> Don't you think that if God dictated each book, they would all be from the same perspective so that every single thing matched up exactly? No, they are written BY the authors as inspired by God but from the perspective of how they experienced each event. But, yes, they are written in the words of the author. No, they are not just made up books as the author saw fit. They were inspired. But each has its own perspective because of who the author was. That's what I'm getting at. God's words as inspired to and through the author.
> 
> Does that make a little bit better sense?


 
I think I understand what you believe now, thanks for the clarification.



Huntinfool said:


> If God wanted to dictate it, don't you think he could have just made the Book appear in the exact form that he wanted it? I mean, I know that's a bit mystical, but he absolutely could have done that. Why do you suppose he used men to write it down and then a whole other set of men to decide which letters, scriptures and writings to include in the "official Bible"? Could he not have just given it to us in full form? I don't have the answer....but it lends itself back my "God is way bigger than we give him credit for" comment earlier.


 
I believe it is in the form that God wanted, just for the reasons you have stated, and I believe that the actual words written in the Bible are God's words, as He wanted them written, not as men saw fit to write what God told him...

Yes God is a lot bigger and a lot more powerful then we give Him credit for!

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> dress modestly... this is a big enough problem today, that it could be it's own topic...
> 
> DB BB


 

WOW! I figured this would spark a HUGE discussion!!!

DB BB


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> No...you're trying to read that to accuse me of something.  But it's not there.
> 
> I don't believe that God dictated every single word of it to Paul.  He inspired him to write what he wanted to be in there.  Hey, how's this?  Each of the gospels is written from the AUTHOR'S perspective.  Each one has elements of who the author is, his background, his education, even his citizenship perspective.
> 
> ...




Your logic for dealing with what we refer to as the New Testament is very dangerous.  When you begin deciding which of Peter's teachings apply to you and which don't, you place yourself in a dangerous position.  Then your only recourse is to decide for yourself; using your worldly mind, with your worldly impressions, and your preconceived beliefs.  Of course you do have the Holy Spirit to lead you into the proper understanding.  But that in itself is dangerous.  Many truths you believe you receive from the Holy Spirit more accurately could be coming from Huntinfool.
When God's word and your beliefs collide, it is your beliefs that are responsible for the wreck.

Example:  If God inspired Paul's writings, why would God allow Paul to contradict God's true will????
If it's written in the scripture, I accept it.
God has certainly NOT inspired me so that I might be able to correct Paul or Peter's errors.

That isn't my stance simply because it's the safe thing to do.  I do it because it's the RIGHT way to handle God's word.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

and I'm not sure you really read or understood anything I said.  You're quick to defend something that doesn't need defending.

I never said I need to discern which scriptures apply to me and which don't.  What I said is that God wants me to discern the message.  I don't think that in any way puts me in his place or dismisses what he wants.  

I don't however believe that he wants women to cover their heads today, or not wear gold jewerly, etc.  The message in those verses is to be cautious of how you present yourself....not don't wear gold jewlery or you better cover your head as is what is actually written there.

See my point?  

as an aside...this statement scares me a little. _"Of course you do have the Holy Spirit to lead you into the proper understanding. But that in itself is dangerous."  _
I get what you were trying to say.  But, Holy Spirit led discernment is never dangerous (except in the sense that it may make us uncomfortable).  Mistaking the HS is of course dangerous.  But if I'm in right relationship and in close communication with the Father, it would be tough for me to mistake who was speaking...don't ya think?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't however believe that he wants women to cover their heads today, or not wear gold jewerly, etc. The message in those verses is to be cautious of how you present yourself....not don't wear gold jewlery or you better cover your head as is what is actually written there.


 
Is it going to hurt anyone if a woman places a hat on her head, or a lace napkin on top of her head?

Is it going to hurt anyone if a woman, doesn't wear jewerly?

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

Nope.  Of course it won't.  But do you seriously read that as the intent of the passage for our application today?  

If you do, no harm no foul.  I'm not going to tell you you're wrong about that.  After all, it IS there!  In fact, I'd say good for you because you'd be one of the rare people that actually live out every single verse the way it's written....without exception.

But if I were to guess, I'd guess that you don't believe those two things are bilbical requirements for women today.  Am I safe in that assumption?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't however believe that he wants women to cover their heads today, or not wear gold jewerly, etc.  The message in those verses is to be cautious of how you present yourself....not don't wear gold jewlery or you better cover your head as is what is actually written there.
> 
> See my point?



Huntinfool,
You keep bringing up the point of the jewlery and hair covering.  You must note the context and who the book was written to.  There were many issues with the jewlery in that church.  The women who were converts from the temples of Diana (I believe) wore much jewlery and shaved their heads.  So this was to set them apart and make sure that they didn't come in to church wearing their satanic garb. (I think this has been pointed out before in earlier posts).

Just like DB BB said, the key is modesty.  And that is what the jewlery verse is pointing to.  For instance, there is nothing wrong with a repentant prostitute coming to church.  But it would be sinful for her to show up in her former work uniform.  

Now in the case of the elder/deacon requirements, this is instruction.  The local church didn't have a lot of women that were coming out of false religions that had them teaching and preaching....it wasn't written to try and keep them from returning to their past sin issues, it was instruction for the church to follow.  

Again, context...who the book was written to, the struggles that church was going through etc etc.

Also, this doesn't mean that God can't use a woman to greatly move the church.  He just uses them in a different way.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> WOW! I figured this would spark a HUGE discussion!!!
> 
> DB BB





Double Barrel BB said:


> dress modestly... this is a big enough problem today, that it could be it's own topic...
> 
> DB BB



Sure could be, but I don't think there is much debate about it.  It is obviously an issue that everyone knows about.  I think it would be another "We All Agree" thread...and we all know that those are no fun at all


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Nope. Of course it won't. But do you seriously read that as the intent of the passage for our application today?
> 
> If you do, no harm no foul. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong about that. After all, it IS there! In fact, I'd say good for you because you'd be one of the rare people that actually live out every single verse the way it's written....without exception.
> 
> But if I were to guess, I'd guess that you don't believe those two things are bilbical requirements for women today. Am I safe in that assumption?


 
Actually, my wife wears a head covering while worshiping.

She does wear jewelry, but it is not anything that would "stand out"...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Huntinfool,
> You keep bringing up the point of the jewlery and hair covering.  You must note the context and who the book was written to.  There were many issues with the jewlery in that church.  The women who were converts from the temples of Diana (I believe) wore much jewlery and shaved their heads.  So this was to set them apart and make sure that they didn't come in to church wearing their satanic garb. (I think this has been pointed out before in earlier posts).
> 
> Just like DB BB said, the key is modesty.  And that is what the jewlery verse is pointing to.  For instance, there is nothing wrong with a repentant prostitute coming to church.  But it would be sinful for her to show up in her former work uniform.
> ...



You just made my point rj.  Did it sound like I was saying something different?  The passages must be read in context of what was going on.  It means be cautious of how you present yourself....not literally you better cover your head. 

I'm using those examples because they are extreme and to make a point that you also made.  Context IS important.

Now on this one, this is more what we're debating.  

_"Now in the case of the elder/deacon requirements, this is instruction.  The local church didn't have a lot of women that were coming out of false religions that had them teaching and preaching....it wasn't written to try and keep them from returning to their past sin issues, it was instruction for the church to follow."_

The question that some are asking, though, is why in one case (i.e. jewelry and head covers) do we have to look at context and in this one we don't really?  As I read it, there WERE issues with some of the women in that church (especially the younger widows) bringing false teaching and gossip into the church.  That could very well have been the logic of why Paul instructed them that way.  He's showing them how to, in a Godly manner, address a problem....possibly?

There are other posts that point out passages where it appears Paul had no issue with women in leadership positions in other churches.  Again, I don't have all the answer....just asking the questions.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Actually, my wife wears a head covering while worshiping.
> 
> She does wear jewelry, but it is not anything that would "stand out"...
> 
> DB BB



Then good for ya sir.  I mean that sincerely.  I commend you for sticking to what you say.

We may not agree.  But I do commend you for "practicing what you preach" on this one.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 4, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Sure could be, but I don't think there is much debate about it. It is obviously an issue that everyone knows about. I think it would be another "We All Agree" thread...and we all know that those are no fun at all


 

You would be surprised how devisive a topic like that can be....

This was a good thread about it....

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=80827&

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Now on this one, this is more what we're debating.
> 
> _"Now in the case of the elder/deacon requirements, this is instruction.  The local church didn't have a lot of women that were coming out of false religions that had them teaching and preaching....it wasn't written to try and keep them from returning to their past sin issues, it was instruction for the church to follow."_
> 
> ...



Context is key in both passages.  Also, look at the other scriptures...note that it isn't only this one passage about deacons that portray that it is a Man's position to be head of household/church.  Also, as far as the younger women being gossips...Paul deals with that seperately and directly.  It isn't that God doesn't want a woman to be pastor because she'll gossip in the pulpit.

And I know there are other posts where people have tried to show that Paul had no issue with women in leadership, but it is a far stretch to get that out of the verse and again, it doesn't go with other areas of scripture.

On this issue and on many others, it is important to take a look at context as well as other verses that talk about the same subject.  Kinda like harmony in music or additional instruments in a band.  Sure, you can get the jist of the song with just a piano.  But add the drums, guitar, keyboard, bass, etc etc and the sound is much fuller.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

Ok.  Well, I guess we'll leave this at agreeing to disagree for now, right?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Ok.  Well, I guess we'll leave this at agreeing to disagree for now, right?



Nope...your wrong


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Nope...your wrong



Sorry...just couldn't resist.  Yup...we disagree.  We'll leave it at that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

rj...you should know by now that I'm ALWAYS wrong.  Haven't you read my posts?  Haven't you read what, well....certain other members say?

I have no idea what I'm talking about....ever...apparently.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 4, 2008)

My $.02. 

 While I recognize the wisdom, as it applies to the 1st century church for which Timothy gave servant-leadership, it would be difficult not to say that today at many Christian congregations, women frequently take responsibility for tasks which scripturally are the province of males ( usually because men fail to step up ).  

Paul, after Pentecost, was threatened to be quiet concerning his beliefs. In response he indicated that if he kept silent the rocks would cry out. I do not believe this was hyperbole.

 When men are, for whatever reason unavailable or unwilling, God raises someone else up to do His bidding. 

[Could it be that many men  ( and women ) of faith have learned and been inspired to action by the lesson that Mother Theresa lived out daily? Why are some women singled out in Jesus' genealogy? For their quiet unobtrusive shadow-like lives? ]

They may not have the title associated with the task, but they are obedient to God's directions which take precedence over the idea that women shouldn't ...... 

Consider female missionaries who are advancing the cause of Christ. Would it be better to "leave the ox in the ditch"? Smacks of legalism to me. I do know we frequently misunderstand scripture when we choose to ignore context.

BTW, anyone interested in understanding Paul's position as regards women, I offer this recommendation.

What Paul Really Said About Women : An Apostle's Liberating Views On Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love by Dr. John Temple Bristow 

  ISBN   0-06-061063-8

Peace be unto you.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

gtparts said:


> ( usually because men fail to step up ).



This doesn't make it right.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Sorry, I was done posting, but I just couldn't let this go.  You mention that the rocks will cry out if people stop...why do you have such little faith that you must take matters into your own hands and do it in a way that God didn't ordain?  Reminds me of Abraham and Sarah.  Didn't trust that God would give them a son through Sarah, so Abraham slept with her servant giving him Ishmael.  Obviously it was in God's plan, but look at the issues that that gave Abraham/the nation of Israel and continues to give the nation of Israel today.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

I think his point was, though, that he sees it as an agreeable progression that if men won't step up, God may ordain that I woman fill the void.  I gotta say, I'm not all that far from that position. 

In otherwords, he's not saying it's two wrongs.  He's saying one wrong and a solution if you will.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I think his point was, though, that he sees it as an agreeable progression that if men won't step up, God may ordain that I woman fill the void.  I gotta say, I'm not all that far from that position.
> 
> In otherwords, he's not saying it's two wrongs.  He's saying one wrong and a solution if you will.



Yes...I understand, but he also quotes scripture saying that the "very rocks will cry out."

Are you saying that women are rocks?

Okay...I'm done.  We don't agree on this issue.  I view it as another wrong...you two view it as a solution to the problem.  I understand your position...just trying to prove a point and again, like a buck drawn to tinks 69, I just couldn't resist my initial response.

Cmon 13th.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 4, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Are you saying that women are rocks?



You tryin' to get me killed?  I'm not gonna touch that one with a ten foot.....no FIFTY FOOT pole!


----------



## gtparts (Sep 4, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> This doesn't make it right.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Sorry, I was done posting, but I just couldn't let this go.  You mention that the rocks will cry out if people stop...why do you have such little faith that you must take matters into your own hands and do it in a way that God didn't ordain?  Reminds me of Abraham and Sarah.  Didn't trust that God would give them a son through Sarah, so Abraham slept with her servant giving him Ishmael.  Obviously it was in God's plan, but look at the issues that that gave Abraham/the nation of Israel and continues to give the nation of Israel today.



It appears that you are one who does take things out of context, at least sometimes. I think we can agree that men not living up to their responsibilities is wrong. I would conclude that you give a strict interpretation to Paul's God-inspired epistles and the passage referenced above in this thread as being applicable to all situations regarding women preaching or teaching the Gospel to men. 

Was the Great Commission given to men only? Did Christ exclude women from participation in the spread of the Gospel? In the absence of the good Samaritan, would it have been unreasonable to consider that a small group of two or three Christian women might have rendered aid to the victim and saved his life and in so doing fulfilled the spirit of what Jesus spoke of when He said, " In as much as you have done it unto the least of these ..."?

1 JOHN 3:18     My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 

I suppose motive is important, but neither you nor I can fathom the "heart" condition of another nor should it be our concern if it is done in the name of Jesus and brings Him glory.

MARK 9: 38-40

38 Now John answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." 
39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 
40 "For he who is not against us is on our side. 

The context is important because the disciples had just finished a discussion apart from Jesus as to who would be the greatest. After the dispute, Jesus called their hand on what they were disputing and they were too ashamed to tell Him. In the next breath, John wanted affirmation of his position based on his rebuke of the party mentioned in verse 38. I suspect that much of men's displeasure at women in ministry is less about the love of Christ and more about their perceived position in the pecking order to which they cling. I would not presume that God is incapable of using women in roles of authority based on your interpretation.

 The Bible makes reference to a prophetess in Luke 2:36-38. She spoke with authority! 

36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 
37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 
38 And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. 

I would not expect to persuade you, but I would not call evil that which God has apparently  blessed.

Peace be unto you.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 4, 2008)

Tom, Here's the point I meant to make earlier.  When someone looks at the scripture and decides that even though Paul said women should not assume leadership roles in the church, it's okay for them to do it any way because Paul probably wasn't speaking through inspiration, they're taking a dangerous step.

You made the following comment:

_But if I'm in right relationship and in close communication with the Father, it would be tough for me to mistake who was speaking...don't ya think?_

What I'm about to say may not apply to you at all but it's worth thinking about...  The world is full of people who think they are in close communication with the Father but their minds are filled with rubbish.

I do agree with those of you who don't think women have to worship with covered heads because history bears it out.  But since, on more than one occasion, Paul spoke of women not leading in the church, I could not go against that teaching.  I'm fully aware that once in heaven I may learn that it would have been okay, but I'd rather err with caution.

I think that means I'm not much of a theologian.

Please don't think I'm hassling you.  I just thought you'd like a different perspective.  Sometimes I think I'm wrong more than right.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 4, 2008)

> But since, on more than one occasion, Paul spoke of women not leading in the church, I could not go against that teaching. I'm fully aware that once in heaven I may learn that it would have been okay, but I'd rather err with caution.



I am with you on this one.  I would much rather err on caution as well, rather than trying to reason it out or justify it.  It says no.... to me that means no.  Women can serve in many capacities  in the church, just not ordained leadership.  I have never felt shorted or cheated.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 4, 2008)

Okay....I said I was done...but I was wrong.  I'm changing my mind...I must be a politician...just couldn't stay away from gtparts response and quotes.




gtparts said:


> It appears that you are one who does take things out of context, at least sometimes.



Where have I taken something out of context?



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> Was the Great Commission given to men only? Did Christ exclude women from participation in the spread of the Gospel?


Of course not.  No one on this thread has said that a woman can't witness to a man...no one on this thread said that a woman can't be a missionary...no one said that a woman can't care for a man....what the Bible says is that a woman is not to be in authority over Men in the Church.  That is much much much much different.



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> I suppose motive is important, but neither you nor I can fathom the "heart" condition of another nor should it be our concern if it is done in the name of Jesus and brings Him glory.
> 
> I suspect that much of men's displeasure at women in ministry is less about the love of Christ and more about their perceived position in the pecking order to which they cling.



Now who is presuming?


GTparts....
I don't think I will sway you to my corner, but I'll keep trying.  I just don't see how you can write-off several Bible verses that specifically state it. But, then again, you'd probably say the same thing about me.

Grace and peace to you as well.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 5, 2008)

Banjo said:


> As a woman, I would love to comment on this...  I believe one of the many scriptures has been posted:
> 
> "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
> 
> ...



Paul is very careful concerning the Word of God and so he gives God recognition when he quotes Him directly, he states things that are revealed to him by God in his own words and takes no credit but becomes a conduit for expressing God's position accurately, and finally he makes personal statements and uses the personal pronoun "I"to indicate his position. He has only done this in a precious few places and this is one of those few. 
Because he takes such great care to distinguish between the source of his writings, I interpret this as a strong personal recommendation from Paul. It almost certainly comes from his Jewish background and perhaps personal experience and yet it is not phrased as a directive. Perhaps he recognized that total prohibition would not serve the cause of Christ in very specialized cases.

I will suggest two contemporary situations to illustrate:
 An inner-city church has been in decline due to demographic changes; old congregants die, younger ones move to the suburbs, the financial base erodes, new locals are cloistered in their ethnicity ie language, culture, or religious beliefs. Attempts at outreach to the community have not been successful to any degree and the pastor resigns and leaves. The remaining few search for but cannot attract a new male pastor and remain without a shepherd for an extended time. A woman who is devoted to God and has the education, the training , and most importantly the calling upon her life for the service of her Lord and Savior and His people comes into the life of this church. 

Could this be a match made in heaven? 

If it is wrong, the Holy Spirit will not be present. If He is, what say you then?

The second takes place in a small nursing home. The dozen or so residents are a mixed group of men and women and there is no one to provide spiritual guidance.
There is no male chaplain nor male church members addressing the spiritual needs of these people. However, two women with a heart for God volunteer to lead a regular modest service for those who would like to attend.
One is a pianists and leads the singing hymns. The other who has taught women's classes gives a devotional. The residents want more, they want to be fed from the Word of God. The worship time expands to 45 minutes and then an hour. Men and women attend with Bible in hand and a desire to worship God. 

Could this be a church, a local body of believers as Paul started in Antioch? The woman does not have the title of senior pastor, or reverend or bishop, but her role clearly defines her position. Should we chastise her for teaching men who are there by choice? Would Jesus take the ladies down a peg for doing what He himself would do? Is the Bread of Life more important than issues of gender?

What say you?

The pharisees were condemned for their strict adherence to the law while denying the Spirit of the law. 

Legalism is ugly, but beautiful are the feet of those who follow Christ and do the will of the Father. 

Peace be unto you and yours.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 5, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay....I said I was done...but I was wrong.  I'm changing my mind...I must be a politician...just couldn't stay away from gtparts response and quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, you feel the pressure in the corner of your mouth? Must be a treble hook.

I will not place God in a box of my construction. I can not place God in any box. His only limitation is that He will not violate His very nature, His character. He uses those He chooses to use and in the manner He chooses. Why would you say He cannot?

Peace be to you and yours.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Sep 5, 2008)

Some folks need to spend more time in the hunting and outdoor forums.  

Just Kiddin folks, I knew this one would get interesting.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 5, 2008)

> An inner-city church has been in decline due to demographic changes; old congregants die, younger ones move to the suburbs, the financial base erodes, new locals are cloistered in their ethnicity ie language, culture, or religious beliefs. Attempts at outreach to the community have not been successful to any degree and the pastor resigns and leaves. The remaining few search for but cannot attract a new male pastor and remain without a shepherd for an extended time. A woman who is devoted to God and has the education, the training , and most importantly the calling upon her life for the service of her Lord and Savior and His people comes into the life of this church.
> 
> Could this be a match made in heaven?
> 
> ...



Pragmatism is to be avoided at all costs, especially concerning God and His Word.  Again....a woman would NOT be called to a place of service that the Word has disallowed.  What good is her education and devotion to God, if she blatantly disregards the commands of Scripture that tell her, "No." As a side note, I believe there are also many men in the pulpit who did not receive a true "call" to be there.

The second scenario is not a church, but a study.  There is no position of authority held there and no governing body.  I have a hard time thinking this exists and there is no local pastor who would gladly devote his time to such a study.


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 5, 2008)

Banjo, according to Christ, LEGALISM is to be avoided at all costs.  You know full well what He called the law-spewing Pharisees and Sadducees of His time.  

There is PALPABLE movement of the spirit of God in many churches lead by women pastors.  They lead lost souls to Christ, preach from the Word, and fulfill the great commission.  

I guess you must thing the above is legitimately impossible...

Why would the Spirit choose to move in a way contrary to the true teaching of the Bible?

And why would Jesus say to pull the ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath if pragmatism is to be avoided....your argument here is meritless


----------



## PWalls (Sep 5, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> They lead lost souls to Christ, preach from the Word, and fulfill the great commission.



Any woman can do the above. We are all called to witness and preach the Gospel and fulfill the great commission.

However, you don't have to be a pastor to do it. So, what makes these women and churches feel the need to elevate a woman into that office that is clearly detailed in Scripture to belong to a MAN called of God?


----------



## fishndinty (Sep 5, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Any woman can do the above. We are all called to witness and preach the Gospel and fulfill the great commission.
> 
> However, you don't have to be a pastor to do it. So, what makes these women and churches feel the need to elevate a woman into that office that is clearly detailed in Scripture to belong to a MAN called of God?



You didn't answer my question.  If God (His Word) forbids women pastors, why is He using them to do great work for the kingdom?  Why would the Spirit move in ANYONE's life that was involved with a church that was contrary to God's Word?


----------



## gtparts (Sep 5, 2008)

Banjo, you were quick to respond , but only to the latter potion of my post. 

From your earlier post:

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

1 Tim. 2:12

The King James uses the word "usurp" authority and is about as accurate a translation of the original Greek manuscripts as one can get in English. It means " to seize or hold by force and without legal authority ( the power or rights of another, for example )

Neither of my scenarios indicated usurpation. Who is the offended? Certainly not one who having received the call, abdicated his responsibilities towards these bodies of believers and seekers.

If indeed these women received a call of God, then they have all the authority they need and one is at least forced to consider that perhaps Paul's instruction to Timothy was not for the expressed purpose of excluding women from positions of church authority, rather to address a specific problem within the church over which Timothy presided. 

We do not have a document to confirm this but it is evident Paul was informed of  many of the difficulties a youthful Timothy faced in his church assignment. Apparently one or more women were trying to usurp Timothy's authority and it is this that prompted Paul's words to Timothy. Firm, authoritative, encouraging, but not harsh. Just what Timothy needed!

The first paragraph you dismissed without comment.

Paul is very careful concerning the Word of God and so he gives God recognition when he quotes Him directly, he states things that are revealed to him by God in his own words and takes no credit but becomes a conduit for expressing God's position accurately, and finally he makes personal statements and uses the personal pronoun "I" to indicate his position. He has only done this in a precious few places and this is one of those few.
Because he takes such great care to distinguish between the source of his writings, I interpret this as a strong personal recommendation from Paul. It almost certainly comes from his Jewish background and perhaps personal experience and yet it is not phrased as a directive. Perhaps he recognized that total prohibition would not serve the cause of Christ in very specialized cases.

So be it. I did not intend to beat you into submission. Such would be vain and above all, un-Christ-like. I do however challenge you to consider an alternative to the understanding gained from your original reading. Perhaps you will find more of Christ in a second reading. I do all the time . 

JOHN 17: 15-26

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. 


Peace! Not as the world knows it.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 5, 2008)

gt...

Didn't mean to ignore your points.  I got busy... and am busy now trying to get dinner done.  I will comment on this quickly:



> Paul is very careful concerning the Word of God and so he gives God recognition when he quotes Him directly, he states things that are revealed to him by God in his own words and takes no credit but becomes a conduit for expressing God's position accurately, and finally he makes personal statements and uses the personal pronoun "I" to indicate his position. He has only done this in a precious few places and this is one of those few.
> Because he takes such great care to distinguish between the source of his writings, I interpret this as a strong personal recommendation from Paul. It almost certainly comes from his Jewish background and perhaps personal experience and yet it is not phrased as a directive. Perhaps he recognized that total prohibition would not serve the cause of Christ in very specialized cases.



How is "I DO NOT PERMIT" not a directive?  

For me, ALL Scripture is God-breathed and ordained.  The Scriptures are called the WORD of GOD as all of it (even the statements made by Paul that begin with "I") is given by the inspiration of God and is authoritative. 
II Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21

Consider this:

Eph. 5:22-24

"Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.  But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."

The husband is responsible for loving headship, and the wife is to be in loving submission.  The Church is made up of families.  If it is improper for the wife to exercise dominion over her husband in the privacy of their home, logic tells us it is improper for her to exercise dominion over her husband outside of the home in the church.  If she cannot be the head of one family, can she really be head of the Church which is made up of many families?

It is easy... if she cannot rule in her home, she cannot rule in the church.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Sep 5, 2008)

I will probably catch heck about this but I have to agree with my wife on this one. Some churches go to extremes to treat women as inferior human beings. HOW CONVENIENT FOR THE MEN. My wife grew up in one. I have no problems with a women pastor. I can't imagine God would either being that he is a loving God. So many posts here portray God as a spiteful God that sets rules for living so stringently that most of us are doomed according to some interpretations. I do not believe that is Gods intention. You can quote all the scripture you want. I believe the bible to be a living document that must be interpreted based on advancements in civilization and culture.

GO AHEAD FIRE AWAY


----------



## PWalls (Sep 5, 2008)

Sterlo58 said:


> I believe the bible to be a living document that must be interpreted based on advancements in civilization and culture.



OK. I will fire away. 

Your statement is one of the things I think is wrong with Christianity today. It allows a personal interpretation. Or, it allows someone to "fit" the Bible and Scripture to their need instead of them trying to fit to God's Word.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 6, 2008)

> Your statement is one of the things I think is wrong with Christianity today. It allows a personal interpretation. Or, it allows someone to "fit" the Bible and Scripture to their need instead of them trying to fit to God's Word.



I have said it before, but it is just like the Israelites who were condemned because "EVERYONE DID WHAT WAS RIGHT IN THEIR OWN EYES."

It is relativism in her finest hour.  This passage means this to me, but I know it means something else ENTIRELY different to you. 

We can't all be right, all the time, myself included.  I believe that would make us God.


----------



## Buckmoses (Sep 6, 2008)

PWalls said:


> OK. I will fire away.
> 
> Your statement is one of the things I think is wrong with Christianity today. It allows a personal interpretation. Or, it allows someone to "fit" the Bible and Scripture to their need instead of them trying to fit to God's Word.



Should we kill those who do not keep the Sabbath? yes or no? The answer is in the Bible. Go look and report back-


----------



## jneil (Sep 7, 2008)

> Your statement is one of the things I think is wrong with Christianity today. It allows a personal interpretation. Or, it allows someone to "fit" the Bible and Scripture to their need instead of them trying to fit to God's Word.





Buckmoses said:


> Should we kill those who do not keep the Sabbath? yes or no? The answer is in the Bible. Go look and report back-



Guess it depends on your interpretation


----------



## Sterlo58 (Sep 7, 2008)

Exodus 31:14-15
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.  
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

I think this is definitely open to interpretation. What say ye quoters of scripture?Should we still take the Bible exactly literaly as it was written???


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2008)

Sterlo58 said:


> Exodus 31:14-15
> 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
> The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
> 
> I think this is definitely open to interpretation. What say ye quoters of scripture?Should we still take the Bible exactly literaly as it was written???


 
Yes it should be.

Now, who was that passage written to? See the verse right before......

12 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it _is_ a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that _you_ may know that I _am_ the LORD who sanctifies you.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Sep 7, 2008)

So you are saying that you believe that those who do not keep the sabbath should be put to death.    
What am I missing?


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2008)

Sterlo58 said:


> So you are saying that you believe that those who do not keep the sabbath should be put to death.
> What am I missing?


 

It was addressed to the Israelites traveling to the promised land.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 9, 2008)

*Banjo*

gt...

Didn't mean to ignore your points. I got busy... and am busy now trying to get dinner done. I will comment on this quickly:

Quote:
Paul is very careful concerning the Word of God and so he gives God recognition when he quotes Him directly, he states things that are revealed to him by God in his own words and takes no credit but becomes a conduit for expressing God's position accurately, and finally he makes personal statements and uses the personal pronoun "I" to indicate his position. He has only done this in a precious few places and this is one of those few.
Because he takes such great care to distinguish between the source of his writings, I interpret this as a strong personal recommendation from Paul. It almost certainly comes from his Jewish background and perhaps personal experience and yet it is not phrased as a directive. Perhaps he recognized that total prohibition would not serve the cause of Christ in very specialized cases.


> How is "I DO NOT PERMIT" not a directive?


For me, ALL Scripture is God-breathed and ordained. The Scriptures are called the WORD of GOD as all of it (even the statements made by Paul that begin with "I") is given by the inspiration of God and is authoritative.
II Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21

Consider this:

Eph. 5:22-24

"Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."

The husband is responsible for loving headship, and the wife is to be in loving submission. The Church is made up of families. If it is improper for the wife to exercise dominion over her husband in the privacy of their home, logic tells us it is improper for her to exercise dominion over her husband outside of the home in the church. If she cannot be the head of one family, can she really be head of the Church which is made up of many families?

It is easy... if she cannot rule in her home, she cannot rule in the church.


Unless I missed something, "I do not permit...." is a declaration as to what he ( Paul) does not allow. Note the personal pronoun. If Paul was telling Timothy how to behave, it would read something like "Timothy, I ( or the Lord )command(s) you not to permit...".  Merely stating what he (Paul ) would not do places no imperative upon Timothy to follow suite.

 Furthermore, Paul specifically states ( in Greek ) that someone is usurping authority which means "taking by force, authority which rightfully belongs to  somebody else." 

If God gives the call, He also gives the authority. If the recipient is male or female, in neither case has he or she taken that authority forcibly from anyone.

Your choice of scripture which addresses the relationship between wives and husbands is not relevant. Paul is not talking about spousal  behavior.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 10, 2008)

> Eph. 5:22-24
> 
> "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."
> 
> ...



gtparts,

If you don't want to see it in the plain truth of Scripture, and you don't see the logic behind the above statement, I just don't know of anything else that I can present to convince you.

Man has a way of justifying anything.  I am afraid that is what you have done.  You are willing to twist and read in to Scripture what is simply not there.  The Bible was written so even the simplest could understand.  My children can read Paul's writing and understand that women are not to be pastors, just like they can read Genesis and understand that God spoke things into existence in the space of 6, 24 hour days...

Why do we adults have to make things so difficult?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 10, 2008)

Banjo said:


> just like they can read Genesis and understand that God spoke things into existence in the space of 6, 24 hour days...



Now why did you have to go and open up a whole other can of worms?

I'm glad your kids can get that.  I suspect, though, that they get that because they've read it and then they've been TOLD by their parents what it means.  

Heck, I'm 33 and I'm still not totally convinced it was 6 24hr periods.  But then again, I'm not convinced that it actually matters either.    

Your kids are a heck of a lot smarter than me...and I thought I was pretty dang smart! 

I can promise you that your kids cannot read the entire Bible and understand everything in it.  Ask them to do it.  Heck, ask them to read one book....I don't care which.  Have no comment on what they are reading while they are doing it and tell me whether or not they come back with any questions.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 10, 2008)

O.k....  huntin, I had you pegged you for an older person.  Don't know why....  and now I find out that I am actually your elder by 5 years.  Who da thunk it?

As for Genesis, if you start the thread, I will participate.

It is kind of hard to get past the whole,

"and it was morning and it was evening" sounds like a literal 24 hour day to me.

Of course my children cannot understand everything in the Bible, neither can I.  However, some things are excessively easy to understand.

I do not permit a woman, and husband of one wife, being amongst them....


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 10, 2008)

10-4.  I may start the thread.  Probably best not to get further off topic.

Yeh, I'm wise beyond my years!!!!!  Ha!


----------



## gtparts (Sep 10, 2008)

Banjo said:


> gtparts,
> 
> If you don't want to see it in the plain truth of Scripture, and you don't see the logic behind the above statement, I just don't know of anything else that I can present to convince you.
> 
> ...



You've done it again. The Ephesians passage you quote deals with SPOUSAL relationships. The Timothy passage has nothing to do with SPOUSAL relationships. 

It is not a difficult thing to understand. Why is it when Paul gives specific advice to Timothy about a specific problem, you and some others would take it upon yourselves to EXPAND this to cover as many situations as you see fit. 

Does it cover:

A.  The specific problem Timothy was having at Ephesus?
B.  Timothy's difficulty at dealing with women in all churches at which he spoke or held a leadership position?
C.  All churches at that time including the one Timothy led?
D. Only churches comprised of men and women?
E.  All churches for all time regardless of size or composition?

I believe you could paint the sky with a single tear.

Why do you not address Paul's use of the personal pronoun "I"?

Why do you not recognize Paul's use of a Greek word which means to forcibly  wrest authority from the one to whom it belongs?

Why do you deny the possibility that a woman may exercise authority over a man if God calls her to that position and clearly no man has been given or responded to that call?

Would God withhold leadership from desperate and lost souls because of gender? Would he leave the ox in the ditch because someone might see and disapprove? Or would He raise up a woman so that some might turn from their wicked ways and be saved? 

OOoops! Sorry guys , but you must be of the non-elect because God has not provided a man for this church position. We've women who are devout and educated, who have upon them the calling to teach women , but alas it is a different Gospel and doctrine that only works if is taught by women to women.

Imagine the looks of those men who sat at the feet of women missionaries in China or Africa and finding out upon entering Heaven that those who gave them the Gospel and taught them, overstepped the bounds set by Paul for the church at Ephesus and being unrepentant ( yet obedient) have suffered loss on their account.

I just can not buy that based on my understanding of the Bible and my relationship with Jesus Christ.

Apparently you can. I can not.

Peace.


----------

