• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Your View On Women As Pastors

Your View On Women As Pastors

  • I see nothing un-Biblical about a woman being a pastor

    Votes: 13 14.0%
  • I believe having a woman as a pastor is un-Biblical

    Votes: 80 86.0%

  • Total voters
    93
Status
Not open for further replies.

Marcia

Active Member
It is very relevant because if men are so lazy to not take the lead and women watch then you do not have any leadership. In churches where the men take leadership then you have an ample supply of leaders.

It is not situational ethics. If it were then a man could serve as pastor according to you even though his home were not in order. A man does not qualify for an office in the church if he has a rebellious wife because his home would not be in order no matter how good he is. A man cannot lead a rebellious wife and no amount of leadership outside of the home makes up for lack of leadership in the home.

Sounds great until one has a rebellious wife. She can drag down a family by her attitude. He does not have leadership in his home automatically by the fact he is a man.

That was not my point. It is very simplistic just to say that the man is the leader when that may not be the case. How is a non-Christian a spiritual leader in the home? A man would be unable to lead his home if his wife did everything to nullify his leadership. That is the reason the Bible addresses both the man and woman.

I don't see your point re the man and rebellious wife. We are talking about the order God set up and how it is a pattern we are to follow. I didn't say the man is the leader; I posted scripture that says the man has spiritual headship in the home. This has nothing to do with my opinion.

If a church is being formed, God will provide a pastor if that church is seeking God. There is no justification for letting a woman step in. If that happens, then the church has not sought God's will, has not waited on Him, and/or is not forming a church according to the NT pattern.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
I don't see your point re the man and rebellious wife. We are talking about the order God set up and how it is a pattern we are to follow. I didn't say the man is the leader; I posted scripture that says the man has spiritual headship in the home.
Having leadership and knowing that the man is to be the leadrer are different issues. He may not have leadrship in a home with a rebellious wife but he is to be the leader.

If a church is being formed, God will provide a pastor if that church is seeking God. There is no justification for letting a woman step in. If that happens, then the church has not sought God's will, has not waited on Him, and/or is not forming a church according to the NT pattern.
I agree. However it is like a woman missionary who was asked by a young seminary student about her right as a woman missionary. She responded by telling the young man, "If there were not so many lazy men then women would not have to go."

I remember reading about Rev. Richard Wurmbrand. He told his wife about the nonsense that was being talked about and whether he should say anything. She told her husband that she did not want to be married to a coward.

Men and women need to encourage men to be leaders and train leaders.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"I reply here that Paul does not use an argument with a universal bearing, but one that was especially applicable to the Corinthians, something he is often in the habit of doing. Therefore he is thinking of particular parties rather than of this particular problem. That is why it does not necessarily follow that churches, which are later in origin, must be forced to adopt, in every detail, the practices of those which were set up earlier." ---John Calvin, Commentary on I Corinthians 14
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is an interesting reference to Rev. Mrs. H. C. Sanders of New Brunswick, Canada (Reformed Baptist), pastor and missionary to South Africa.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Having leadership and knowing that the man is to be the leadrer are different issues. He may not have leadrship in a home with a rebellious wife but he is to be the leader.

I agree. However it is like a woman missionary who was asked by a young seminary student about her right as a woman missionary. She responded by telling the young man, "If there were not so many lazy men then women would not have to go."

I remember reading about Rev. Richard Wurmbrand. He told his wife about the nonsense that was being talked about and whether he should say anything. She told her husband that she did not want to be married to a coward.

Men and women need to encourage men to be leaders and train leaders.

With all due respect, I don't see anywhere here where you are using biblical support for women pastors.
 

Marcia

Active Member
"I reply here that Paul does not use an argument with a universal bearing, but one that was especially applicable to the Corinthians, something he is often in the habit of doing. Therefore he is thinking of particular parties rather than of this particular problem. That is why it does not necessarily follow that churches, which are later in origin, must be forced to adopt, in every detail, the practices of those which were set up earlier." ---John Calvin, Commentary on I Corinthians 14

I guess nobody is reading what I've posted 4 times from 1 Tim 2:

11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

It is crystal clear from the above scripture that the reasons are not local or cultural.
 

John Toppass

Active Member
Site Supporter
"I reply here that Paul does not use an argument with a universal bearing, but one that was especially applicable to the Corinthians, something he is often in the habit of doing. Therefore he is thinking of particular parties rather than of this particular problem. That is why it does not necessarily follow that churches, which are later in origin, must be forced to adopt, in every detail, the practices of those which were set up earlier." ---John Calvin, Commentary on I Corinthians 14

John Calvin was also wrong about this.
 

Lux et veritas

New Member
John Calvin was also wrong about this.

John Calvin is NOT wrong on the position of women as pastors in the church.

Once again 'Jerome' is bearing false witness by selective quotes!!

I have challenged him on this already in this thread. He has steadfastly refused to deal with his error and make it right. You ought to ignore what 'Jerome' posts as a quote from Calvin - he is twisting Calvin's words.

Here's Calvin on women in leadership in the church:

"For what is there," some will say, "to hinder their being in subjection, and yet at the same time teaching?" I answer, that the office of teaching [or preaching - footnote] is a superiority in teh Church and is, subsequently inconsistent with subjection.

For how unseemly a thing it were, that one who is under subjection to one of the members, should preside over the entire body! It is therefore an argument from things inconsistent - If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. [Footnote - "she cannot, therefore, have public authority to preach or teach"]. And unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs....

Paul's reasoning, however is simple - that authority to teach is not suitable to the station that a woman occupies, because, if she teaches, she presides over all the men, while it becomes her to be under subjection.

(Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34)

Now that is what John Calvin wrote about the position of women as pastors in the Church. You may or may not agree with him, but DO NOT TAKE JEROME'S QUOTES ANY MORE. He is wrong and and unrepentant of his false witness and slander of another man! (Calvin)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
John Calvin is NOT wrong on the position of women as pastors in the church.

Once again 'Jerome' is bearing false witness by selective quotes!!

I have challenged him on this already in this thread. He has steadfastly refused to deal with his error and make it right. You ought to ignore what 'Jerome' posts as a quote from Calvin - he is twisting Calvin's words.

Here's Calvin on women in leadership in the church:

"For what is there," some will say, "to hinder their being in subjection, and yet at the same time teaching?" I answer, that the office of teaching [or preaching - footnote] is a superiority in teh Church and is, subsequently inconsistent with subjection.

For how unseemly a thing it were, that one who is under subjection to one of the members, should preside over the entire body! It is therefore an argument from things inconsistent - If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. [Footnote - "she cannot, therefore, have public authority to preach or teach"]. And unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs....

Paul's reasoning, however is simple - that authority to teach is not suitable to the station that a woman occupies, because, if she teaches, she presides over all the men, while it becomes her to be under subjection.

(Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34)

Now that is what John Calvin wrote about the position of women as pastors in the Church. You may or may not agree with him, but DO NOT TAKE JEROME'S QUOTES ANY MORE. He is wrong and and unrepentant of his false witness and slander of another man! (Calvin)

Sadly, wrong. No false witness has been made with the exception of you against Jerome. He has quoted J. Calvin in context and it can be looked up. Calvin, like other men of God was not a man entirely consistant in 'all' his views, a good example here is the atonement. In his commentaries you can see him flip-flopping from general to specific quite often. However, what you give and Jerome give are both from the same man, in his own words and both can be read in the context they were given. In your quote it is seen that according to Calvin, Paul was affirming the current status quo, but in Jerome's quote of Calvin we see that Calvin thought it could change as the church has need or chooses.

Here is the rest of his commentary of the next verses (35-36), just after your quote which is where Jerome was quoting from:

35. If they wish to learn any thing. That he may not seem, by this means, to shut out women from opportunities of learning, he desires them, if they are in doubt as to anything, to inquire in private, that they may not stir up any disputation in public. When he says, husbands, he does not prohibit them from consulting the Prophets themselves, if necessary. For all husbands are not competent to give an answer in such a case; but, as he is reasoning here as to external polity, he reckons it sufficient to point out what is unseemly, that the Corinthians may guard against it. In the meantime, it is the part of the prudent reader to consider, that the things of which he here treats are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification.


36 Did the word of God come out from you? This is a somewhat sharper reproof, but nothing more than was needful for beating down the haughtiness of the Corinthians. They were, beyond measure, self-complacent. They could not endure that either themselves, or what belonged to them, should be found fault with in anything. He asks, accordingly, whether they are the only Christians in the world; nay, farther, whether they are the first, or are to be the last? “Did the word of God,” says he, “come out from you?” that is, “Did it originate with you?” “Has it ended with you?” that is, “Will it spread no farther?” The design of the admonition is this — that they may not, without having any regard to others, please themselves in their own contrivances or customs. And this is a doctrine of general application; for no Church should be taken up with itself exclusively, to the neglect of others; but on the contrary, they ought all, in their turn, to hold out the right hand to each other, in the way of cherishing mutual fellowship, and accommodating themselves to each other, in so far as a regard to harmony requires.
Footnote 883883 “Autant qu’il est requis pour nourrir paix et concorde;” — “in so far as it is requisite for maintaining peace and harmony.”
But here it is asked, whether every Church, according as it has had the precedence of another in the order of time,
Fotenote 884884 “Et est plus ancienne;” — “And is more ancient.”
has it also in its power to bind it to observe its institutions.
Footnote 885885 “A ses ordonnances et manieres de faire;” — “To its ordinances and methods of acting.”
For Paul seems to intimate this in what he says. For example, Jerusalem was the mother of all the Churches, inasmuch as the word of the Lord had come out from it Was she then at liberty to assume to herself a superior right, so as to bind all others to follow her? I answer, that Paul here does not employ an argument of universal application, but one that was specially applicable to the Corinthians, as is frequently the case. He had, therefore, an eye to individuals, rather than to the thing itself. Hence it does not necessarily follow, that Churches that are of later origin must be bound to observe, in every point, the institutions of the earlier ones, inasmuch as even Paul himself did not bind himself by this rule, so as to obtrude upon other Churches the customs that were in use at Jerusalem. Let there be nothing of ambition — let there be nothing of obstinacy — let there be nothing of pride and contempt for other Churches — let there be, on the other hand, a desire to edify — let there be moderation and prudence; and in that case, amidst a diversity of observances, there will be nothing that is worthy of reproof.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lux et veritas

New Member
Sadly, wrong. No false witness has been made with the exception of you against Jerome. He has quoted J. Calvin in context and it can be looked up. Calvin, like other men of God was not a man entirely consistant in 'all' his views, a good example here is the atonement. In his commentaries you can see him flip-flopping from general to specific quite often. However, what you give and Jerome give are both from the same man, in his own words and both can be read in the context they were given. In your quote it is seen that according to Calvin, Paul was affirming the current status quo, but in Jerome's quote of Calvin we see that Calvin thought it could change as the church has need or chooses.

Prove it then. Give the specific place and context of what Jerome is quoting of Calvin. At least I give readers on the forum the very place in which to check out a quote. Not like you and Jerome.
 

Allan

Active Member
Prove it then. Give the specific place and context of what Jerome is quoting of Calvin. At least I give readers on the forum the very place in which to check out a quote. Not like you and Jerome.

I just did, I editted my post to include Jeromes quotation (in context) that immidately comes after your quotation from Calvin commentaries on 1 Cor 14. It is from verse 36.
 

Lux et veritas

New Member
I just did, I editted my post to include Jeromes quotation (in context) that immidately comes after your quotation from Calvin commentaries on 1 Cor 14. It is from verse 36.

And Calvin is not speaking of women as pastors. He dealt with that very clearly (except of course for you and Jerome).

Calvin is dealing with another verse here - this is a verse-by-verse commentary you know - and here he is dealing with the issue of whether one church has power over another or not.

Please, if you would just read the words, you would save a lot of time and effort.
 

Allan

Active Member
And Calvin is not speaking of women as pastors. He dealt with that very clearly (except of course for you and Jerome).

Calvin is dealing with another verse here - this is a verse-by-verse commentary you know - and here he is dealing with the issue of whether one church has power over another or not.

Please, if you would just read the words, you would save a lot of time and effort.

They are seperate and distinct from each other but deal with the entire concept. Personally I think Calvin is incorrect on this point but was showing you that you are not seeing what he is saying. They corrispond one to another just as the passages do. You can not seperate them at your pleasure to suite your view. Calvin is speaking of this view regarding women to be the things ..which.. are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification. Thus he continues, not seperately dealing with some other issue but with this issue that encompasses other issues of similar type in vs 36 in which he states toward it's end:
I answer, that Paul here does not employ an argument of universal application, but one that was specially applicable to the Corinthians, as is frequently the case. He had, therefore, an eye to individuals, rather than to the thing itself. Hence it does not necessarily follow, that Churches that are of later origin must be bound to observe, in every point, the institutions of the earlier ones, inasmuch as even Paul himself did not bind himself by this rule, so as to obtrude upon other Churches the customs that were in use at Jerusalem
Remember, Paul was getting on the Corinthian church for what it was allowing it's women to do and in that rebuke asked if they were the ones from which the Word of God, and thus are they somehow specially privilleged to change, for themselves, what is current understood. The key here is that it was about themselves, and for themselves, irregardless of what others understood because it was all about them. It is, I believe, in part as to why Calvin goes a little further in stating that this view is to be seen as changable. I disagree that Paul was taking these questions to that extent, in the futre but..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Cky Carrigan, John Calvin On Gender Equality:

"There are several other entries in the Calvin corpus that agree with the above citations for the woman's subordinate role in church. But, there are two inharmonious remarks, however, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and there are several other inharmonious remarks in the Institutes 4.10.27-30 that compromise Calvin. He cracked open the door for mitigating the degree of female subordination in the church when he wrote, "For a situation can arise where there is a need of such a kind as calls for a woman to speak. But Paul is confining himself to what is fitting in a properly organized congregation." And Calvin also cracked open this door while commenting on verse 35. He wrote, "The discerning reader should come to the decision, that the things which Paul is dealing with here, are indifferent [adiaphora], neither good nor bad; and that they are forbidden only because they work against seemliness and edification."
Also, Calvin's principle of accommodation together with his principles of propriety, order and decorum in the Institutes 4.10.27-31, may have made a tiny opening for women in the "glass ceiling" of church hierarchy. Things that are "not necessary to salvation . . . ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age." Calvin left a hint that "these things" may include "women teaching in the church."
It is important to note here that while Calvin may have cracked open the door for women, potentially, to teach, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever actually permitted it. Furthermore, it would not seem plausible to suggest that Calvin would ever have permitted women, even potentially, to teach in such a way that their universal subordination to men, especially their male pastors and male husbands, would have been violated. Calvin's exegesis of Scripture came out overwhelmingly for the subordination of women to men in their roles in church. But, his Institutes presented something of a mixed message that is extremely difficult to harmonize satisfactorily with his views on gender equality with reference to being, and with reference to roles in marriage and society at large.
What might account for Calvin's slight, but important, ambiguity on the subordination of women in the church especially with reference to teaching? Perhaps Calvin was just mistaken about either subordination or about accommodation. Or, perhaps some aspect of his metaphysical dualism produced this unsolved mystery. At any rate, Calvin left a little rough spot here that must remain so as long as the record stands as it does."
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

"This text, whatever may be its other value, is mainly of importance, because it indicates three tests of a genuine, God-sent leader. In the first place he speaks the word of God, in the second place his faith is fixed on a personal Saviour; and, in the third place, his life conforms to the Word of God and to the faith in Christ, and ends in a glorious immortality. Wherever we find those three indications meeting in any man or woman, we may recognize the heaven-sent leader, and it is at our peril if we do not follow such leadership."
---A.T. Pierson preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, 1892.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

"This text, whatever may be its other value, is mainly of importance, because it indicates three tests of a genuine, God-sent leader. In the first place he speaks the word of God, in the second place his faith is fixed on a personal Saviour; and, in the third place, his life conforms to the Word of God and to the faith in Christ, and ends in a glorious immortality. Wherever we find those three indications meeting in any man or woman, we may recognize the heaven-sent leader, and it is at our peril if we do not follow such leadership."
---A.T. Pierson preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, 1892.

Whoever A. T. Pierson was, he is ignoring a basic of biblical interpretation: interpret scripture in light of other scripture. So if one takes into account the 1 Tim 2 passage, which I have posted here 4 times and which no one supporting women pastors has been able to dismiss and so they have apparently just ignored it, one adds the above qualifications to that. One does not take the above qualifications and ignore 1 Tim 2.
 

Lux et veritas

New Member
Cky Carrigan, John Calvin On Gender Equality:

"There are several other entries in the Calvin corpus that agree with the above citations for the woman's subordinate role in church. But, there are two inharmonious remarks, however, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and there are several other inharmonious remarks in the Institutes 4.10.27-30 that compromise Calvin. He cracked open the door for mitigating the degree of female subordination in the church when he wrote, "For a situation can arise where there is a need of such a kind as calls for a woman to speak. But Paul is confining himself to what is fitting in a properly organized congregation." And Calvin also cracked open this door while commenting on verse 35. He wrote, "The discerning reader should come to the decision, that the things which Paul is dealing with here, are indifferent [adiaphora], neither good nor bad; and that they are forbidden only because they work against seemliness and edification."
Also, Calvin's principle of accommodation together with his principles of propriety, order and decorum in the Institutes 4.10.27-31, may have made a tiny opening for women in the "glass ceiling" of church hierarchy. Things that are "not necessary to salvation . . . ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age." Calvin left a hint that "these things" may include "women teaching in the church."
It is important to note here that while Calvin may have cracked open the door for women, potentially, to teach, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever actually permitted it. Furthermore, it would not seem plausible to suggest that Calvin would ever have permitted women, even potentially, to teach in such a way that their universal subordination to men, especially their male pastors and male husbands, would have been violated. Calvin's exegesis of Scripture came out overwhelmingly for the subordination of women to men in their roles in church. But, his Institutes presented something of a mixed message that is extremely difficult to harmonize satisfactorily with his views on gender equality with reference to being, and with reference to roles in marriage and society at large.
What might account for Calvin's slight, but important, ambiguity on the subordination of women in the church especially with reference to teaching? Perhaps Calvin was just mistaken about either subordination or about accommodation. Or, perhaps some aspect of his metaphysical dualism produced this unsolved mystery. At any rate, Calvin left a little rough spot here that must remain so as long as the record stands as it does."

You just don't get it do you? Because of such a despising of all things "Calvinistic" you have to make him appear "wrong" in everything.

Why don't you read his words. Saying that a situation may arise that calls for a woman to speak up in a church, is a far cry from a woman being a pastor. Which IS what this thread is all about.

But keep on posting. Each time you do you punch another hole in your arguments and undermine your credibility!
 

Lux et veritas

New Member
Whoever A. T. Pierson was, he is ignoring a basic of biblical interpretation: interpret scripture in light of other scripture. So if one takes into account the 1 Tim 2 passage, which I have posted here 4 times and which no one supporting women pastors has been able to dismiss and so they have apparently just ignored it, one adds the above qualifications to that. One does not take the above qualifications and ignore 1 Tim 2.

A.T. Pierson was a good man. And there is nothing in Jerome's post of his comments that is contrary to scripture. There are indeed areas in which women may show (scripturally accepted) 'leadership' in the church (works of mercy, kids' ministry, etc.), but that is not being a pastor.

Jerome continues to cherry pick his quotes and attribute false and misleading concepts to men who are not saying what he is trying to 'make' them say. Shameful.
 

Harold Garvey

New Member
Scripture does not forbid women as pastors. Neither is it an issue of the Baptist Dictinctives. Therefore, in accordance with the Distinctive of local autonomy and individual liberty, Baptist churches are permitted to decide that for themselves, although, historically, Baptists abhor females at the pastorate level.

People often quote the "husband of one wife" verse, but the words in Greek (Mias gunaikos andra) means "a man of one woman". Paul was instructing that a leader in the church was to be a “one-woman man”, loyal to his wife and to her alone. Paul was not, in this verse, attempting to exclude women in the role of leadership.

I give it three posts before someone accuses me of liberalism or heresy.
Well,Johnv, "a man of one woman" a woman can not fulfill.:sleep:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top