Women Preachers

Annsni's pronouncement that:

would seemingly preclude Margaret Thatcher as PM, a lady being in any leadership role over men in business, etc. even if her husband fully supported her (or, in ituttut's lingo, she was being "obedient" and he "didn't protest").

 

Jim this is not a cultural issue.

The woman was under the man before the fall- that's before there WAS a culture- there were only two humans on earth!

I Timothy 2 tells us the reasons women are not to teach men in the church.

The FIRST is that Adam was first formed then Eve.

She is a helper.

Women who accept this role seem to be the happiest in my experience.

 

Wow, is it our own personal lives and culture that are the authority, or is it the Word of the Living God?

 

The Christian, Nov. 14, 1872, p. 13:

 

Jim...

Very wise and helpful post. I always read your posts. Thank you for taking the time to share in this thread--which may be going nowhere, at this point.

Some of us want to learn. Some of us want to debate. I have met few debaters who are good teachers because they are so concerned with pushing their own ideas. They rarely pause to consider what the other person wants to learn.

Anyway, Jim, thank you for sharing.

...Bob

 

The Word of God states clearly that women are not to teach men, doesn't it?

In that context the first reason given has absolutely nothing to do with culture.

The reason was so before there was a such thing as culture.

It was that Adam was first formed then Eve.

the second reason given is because of the fall- Adam was not in the transgression but Eve.

You guys keep referring to cultural context when Paul clearly said the reasons have nothing at all to do with culture.

 

I do not know if what I am about to say will change viewpoints expressed so far in this thread. Everyone appears to be entrenched with helmets and bonnets. However, I will make a brief go of it.

. . .

First, I googled "Paul and Phoebe" and learned a great deal from the first 20 or so webpages. However, none of the webpages providing information and views on Phoebe were identified as Baptist websites.

Next, I googled "Paul and Phoebe Baptist View" and was surprised to see several webpages discussing Phoebe's role as deaconess in the New Testament. These webpages are linked with the website www.allexperts.com. Rev. Woods appears to be a real person and provided information as recent as November 27, 1010. Here is what Rev. Woods says about himself.

Expert Profile: Rev. Robert Woods
Expertise: I am an Senior Pastor of Southminster Church in Louisville, KY. I have a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I have an undergraduate degree in Government/Pre-law. I have special expertise in Church versus State issues. I have done intensive study in Baptist Doctrine and Eschatology. I can answer questions about separation of church and state, christian involvement in politics, what is the Baptist view on abortion, or capital punishment, who is going to heaven or to hell, what are the differences between the churches, why do Baptist immerse people, when is Jesus going to return, what are the signs of the end of time, is the battle of Armageddon going to come soon, and more! I am also co-author of the Book: The End of Days The Warning ISBN-13: 9781424199808 Check out our web site at http://www.theendofdaysthewarning.com​

Here are the links to Rev. Woods' discussions of Paul and Phoebe.

Baptists -- Women in Ministry (11/15/2009)

Baptists -- Women Ministers (04/24/2007)

Baptists -- Women Pastors (09/08/2009)

Baptists -- Women Serving as Deacons (11/13/2006)
​

Furthermore, there appears a short online paper Phoebe the Deaconess, Based on Romans 16:1-16 by Glenn Pease at www.scribd.com.

Finally, the fifth website result to the google "Paul and Phoebe Baptist View," is none other than a www.BaptistBoard.com poll posted on July 10, 2006 by EaglewingIS4031: Who was Phebe?

The poll is still active. So, click on the previous link and cast your vote.

...Bob

 

ituttut...

Thanks for your clarification.

...Bob

 

I say let them!

 

I'll stick with the Holy Spirit and Paul (not to mention the rest of scripture) on this topic.. It is an area forbidden them based on 2 main points from scripture as previously addressed already -
Adam was formed first
and the woman was in transgression.


This, according to scripture, has nothing to do with culture, a woman's abilities, nor class status (as though women are second class citizens). God said it, that settles it, regardless of whether I choose believe/accept it or not.

 

It all comes down to whether we think Paul's words - as written (or translated) - are applicable to us today or not.

Do we follow the scripture as written or do we modify it to fit our view of society? Obviously, ALL of us modify scripture to fit our society to some degree unless our women are silent in church and cover their heads. If we strictly follow scripture, we would not have wives working outside the home either. We might believe that there is wiggle room, but I don't think that wiggle room was actually given.

So, it is a matter of degree - even for you who claim to follow scripture to the letter. There may be some here who do, but I don't know. I haven't seen anyone yet post about the wife's head covering and lack of outside employment.

Am I seeing the responses correctly, or have I misunderstood someone?

 

Absolutely. Where is the "wiggle room" in I Tim. 2:12 that allows them to limit female subjection/silence to "the church", or church "public meetings", or the "sermon time" of such meetings, or who knows what caveats they add to Scripture to prevent it from being universally applied?

God said women are to be silent.
Somehow they reimagine/redefine "silent" as meaning "not a church officer".
And that settles it (for them).

 

You know, this is one of the very worst things to say in any kind of discussion among believers. What you're doing is saying, "My interpretation is right and everyone else is wrong and being dishonest." You're drawing a line in the sand between yourself and other believers. This issue is about conviction and interpretation, not about a right group and a wrong/dishonest group.

Carefully study both sides of the issue.

 

In I Timothy 2:12 the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. A more accurate translation in English is: "I am not presently allowing" or "I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men"

We know that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5).

We know that women functioned in the Church as deaconesses,. i.e. Phoebe.
We know that Paul called Junia a disciple.
Thus we know, that Paul did not prohibit women to speak in all places and churches.

1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat, a threat from the gnostics. It is in the same class as Paul's writing about women wearing a head covering. This also was aimed at a specific problem in Corinth.

So it is obvious that Paul was not giving a universal command in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Jaigner wrote in reply to Allen:

Well said. What God said and how it is interpreted is often quite different.

To me the statement by Allen also implies a closed mind that would not change even if God told them differently. It reminds me of the thought about Moses and the burning bush by E. Barrett Browning.

__________________

 

Clearly it's the...


CULTURE!
:BangHead:

 

Of course it is, that is why we get these experts on here, who use their own personal lives and what they deem wisdom, and subjective truth otherwise, as authority, above and beyond Scripture. This is why you don't hear Scriptures, instead you hear about them.

One even went as far as telling us how wise it is to give the people what they want as far as in what we teach, and how wise it is to do such. Not here, and not in todays church, will I, for one, scratch ears, but will seek out God's direction, not mans. This attitude is unbelieveable. It's called scratching itching ears v. preaching the Word and seeking God's direction above all else.

Whenever anyone, uses their own personal life/lives as an example to support a belief they have, which is generally and usually unscriptural, a la "women pastors" that person has set himself, or herself up as Authority.

Also using quotes from the Spurgeon era, noting a woman preacher, is not proof it is "OK". That's not the Word. I don't care what any big name did, allowed, or tolerated. Big names aren't my authority.

We say sola scriptura, but at the end of the day, it is some persons lives that are used as authority, thus, sola scriptura is not adhered to.

We have to measure everything with Scriptures, not measure what persons claim that they practice as some sort of authority. It's shameful really that the church has fallen thus.

 

Hmm....still see no one from the egalitarian side has presented a Scriptural argument for their position.

Glad I'm not holding my breath.

Also one of my points as not been addressed which is that while women are given tremendous worth in the NT (which is a wonderful thing in relation to their times) they are not attached with specific offices of the local church. I would challenge that, in the instance of Phoebe, it's akin to saying: "Well that Mary is such a wonderful servant at First Baptist Witchahatchie" doesn't mean she has a position of authority but is more an attribution of her heart and willing service for the glory of the God.

Anyone in this thread supporting the egalitarian position is welcome to comment, but I have yet to see a Scriptural reply from them. I'll gladly engage with any provided.