Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

[annsni]

Well, I have seen in this thread women pastors equated with sodomites and compared to dogs. I'd hate to be where some of you are because you've got some judgment coming. Some of you remind me of the first century legalists and Pharisees who tried to tell Jesus what He could and couldn't do.

For those who claim that women are not allowed to teach men spiritually, consider this: According to Mark and Luke, the announcement of Jesus's resurrection was first made to women. According to Matthew and John, Jesus actually appeared first to women -- in John, to Mary Magdalene alone. Whereas some say that women are not qualified or authorized to teach men, the four Gospels have it that the risen Christ commissioned women to teach men, including Peter and the other apostles, the fact of the resurrection, which is the very foundation of Christianity.

A woman declaring something to a man is not teaching or having authority over them. I can go into my pastor and tell him that Joe is here to see him and that doesn't mean that I'm going against what Scripture says. Yes, Jesus held women in high honor - much higher than the culture permitted at the time. We see that men and women are equal at the foot of the cross but that doesn't mean that we can completely disregard the direct commands of Scripture that says that women are not to have authority over or teach men.

Can you show me where the four Gospels have Jesus commissioning women to teach men? I'd love to see those passages.

 

[jaigner]

Any church who ordains a woman or sodomite to the pulpit is in direct rebellion against God. God has given commands who are to be ordained.
He did not ask for our imput,or "enlightened ideas"

I just about choked on my adult beverage.

Women and sodomites? Together in the same sentence? The arguments for excluding the two groups are in stark contrast with each other. This is a completely ridiculous statement.

Does anyone else get this?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I just about choked on my adult beverage.

Women and sodomites? Together in the same sentence? The arguments for excluding the two groups are in stark contrast with each other. This is a completely ridiculous statement.

Does anyone else get this?

Well, yes I got it and it is a very sane statement since both are being practiced today in regard to the ministry and since both are equally unbiblical.

You response represents the age we live and the seared conscience of most who live in this age.

 

[jaigner]

You response represents the age we live and the seared conscience of most who live in this age.

Hmm, funny that you would call me that, seeing as how I am generally respectful of others' beliefs, even though I don't agree with them. My conscience, prayer and the soundest Scriptural interpretations by some of the greatest evangelical scholars have led me to this position.

I shall think you position is wrought through a similar process, therefore I will not cast judgment on you or the condition of your conscience, though I thoroughly disagree with your position.

I would ask that you do the same for me.

Thanks.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hmm, funny that you would call me that, seeing as how I am generally respectful of others' beliefs, even though I don't agree with them. My conscience, prayer and the soundest Scriptural interpretations by some of the greatest evangelical scholars have led me to this position.

I shall think you position is wrought through a similar process, therefore I will not cast judgment on you or the condition of your conscience, though I thoroughly disagree with your position.

I would ask that you do the same for me.

Thanks.

If you are wrong you are just wrong! If you follow those who teach falsehood you will embrace falsehood.

Take a look at your rediculous statement - rediculous in the light of what God's word clearly teaches:

The arguments for excluding the two groups are in stark contrast with each other. This is a completely ridiculous statement.

Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.


Rom. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Tim. 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Take note that Paul grounds his command on the divine order established by God at Creation before cultural mores were established.

What is "rediculous" is your false interpretation of the scriptures that is what is "rediculous."

the soundest Scriptural interpretations by some of the greatest evangelical scholars have led me to this position.

Isa. 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

If you don't like the insinuation of being called "rediculous" then don't make the insinuation toward others and don't follow the "rediculous" teaching of men - no matter how famous those men might be in your sight - "they which lead thee cause thee to err"!

 

[jaigner]

If you don't like the insinuation of being called "rediculous" then don't make the insinuation toward others and don't follow the "rediculous" teaching of men - no matter how famous those men might be in your sight - "they which lead thee cause thee to err"!

Thus saith Dr. Walter. I'm convinced.

Seriously, I'd rather be "rediculous" [sic] than "ridiculous," I guess, but that word isn't in my dictionary.

Ever read N.T. Wright? John Stott? Gilbert Bilezikian? Mark Noll?

Just wondering.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Jainer.....

It's an exercise to highlight the ridiculous and extra-biblical reasons given for why women should not be ordained.

And a very good one. I enjoyed every bit of it! Thanks for posting

I dont know what its going to take for us Baptists (and other evangelicals) to FINALLY see how horrible this extremely embarassing prejudice against women is.

It makes us look like a bunch of neanderthals. Its shamefull.

Actually I think that this might be about the ONLY thing that that wasteland of error known as "liberal protestant theology" has managed to get right. They allow competant women to be pastors.

The liberals got something right...Miracles can happen!

 

[DHK]

Jainer.....



And a very good one. I enjoyed every bit of it! Thanks for posting

I dont know what its going to take for us Baptists (and other evangelicals) to FINALLY see how horrible this extremely embarassing prejudice against women is.

It makes us look like a bunch of neanderthals. Its shamefull.

Actually I think that this might be about the ONLY thing that that wasteland of error known as "liberal protestant theology" has managed to get right. They allow competant women to be pastors.

The liberals got something right...Miracles can happen!

So you got it right and Paul got it wrong, or,
Paul just didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote about the qualifications of a pastor, and the duties/place of a woman in the church?
Did God throw some extra revelation your way?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thus saith Dr. Walter. I'm convinced.

Seriously, I'd rather be "rediculous" [sic] than "ridiculous," I guess, but that word isn't in my dictionary.

Ever read N.T. Wright? John Stott? Gilbert Bilezikian? Mark Noll?

Just wondering.

Have you ever read Paul? Have you studied the reasons he gives for what he commands concerning women?

Last time, I checked God's Word trumps man's word's and man's interpretation.

Here are some of the common human fallacies by those who interpret Paul to mean and say exactly what he meant and said:

1. He was a woman hater
2. He was merely providing temporary advice wisdom to deal with a male dominated culture
3. He was not inspired
4. Examples in scripture trump precepts in scripture
5. He was not speaking for God but only for himself
6. etc., etc.,

These great scholars violate very simple rules of hermeneutics.

1. They ignore the contextual reasons given by the writer
2. They pit contrary examples against precepts
3. They take from contexts where women can instruct other women and children
4. They take from contexts of male rebellion against God and make the use of women in leadership positions the standard instead of the exception.
5. They read congregational settings into contexts where none exist
6. They read inferences contrary to precept and positive examples.

Yes, I have read some of those you list and many more and when you are wrong it does not matter how great UNINSPIRED men are in the eyes of their adoring followers.

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK...

If you hold to the "women must not lead men, and must be silent and in submission" mentality, then dont think that you should must also be pro-slavery? Those two issues pretty much go hand in hand scripturally.

Here is an excerpt, from a baptist source, with a link to the rest....(bolding mine)

Without a guiding principle, the Bible's teachings on women may appear to be confusing to some people. Only husbands of one wife should be deacons (1 Tim. 3:12), yet Phoebe is a deaconess (Rom. 16:1). Women are not to speak in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 15:34), yet they are given instructions about praying and prophesying in worship (1 Cor. 11:5ff.). Women are told not to teach or be in authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12), yet women did teach, and at least one woman Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquila, taught a man (Acts 18:26).

Egalitarian or Submissive

Baptists, as most other denominations, are divided in their approach to the Bible on the role of women in the church. Some follow a literal interpretation of certain biblical passages and make a case for the submission of women to men in the church. While these Baptists usually insist that women are equal in the sight of God, they believe that God has given men and women different roles in the home and in the church. They interpret Genesis 2 to mean that Eve was created to be Adam's helper and that ancient cultural pattern is applied universally to the present.

For these Baptists, Jesus was not overly radical in his treatment of women (notably that he did not select a woman to be an apostle), and Paul taught a clear division of roles that is an inherent part of nature.

Other Baptists follow an egalitarian perspective. In Galatians 3:27-28, Paul wrote, "As many of you as are baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus " (NRSV).1 The "Address to the Public," adopted on May 9, 1991, by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, asserted:

We take Galatians as a clue to the way the Church should be ordered. We interpret the reference to women the same way we interpret the reference to slaves. If we have submissive roles for women, we must also have a place for slaves in the Church.

In Galatians Paul follows the spirit of Jesus who courageously challenged the conventional wisdom of his day. It was a wisdom with rigid boundaries between men and women in religion and in public life. Jesus deliberately broke those barriers. He called women to follow him; he treated women as equally capable of dealing with sacred issues. Our model for the role of women in matters of faith is the Lord Jesus.

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=777

 

[DHK]

DHK...

If you hold to the "women must not lead men, and must be silent and in submission" mentality, then dont think that you should must also be pro-slavery? Those two issues pretty much go hand in hand scripturally.

What has "slavery" got to do with anything? The issue is hardly even addressed in the Bible. Paul addressed himself in Rom.1:1 as a "slave" (doulos) to the believers in Rome.

The word is stronger than diakonos (servant), but both are translated the same way in English (Rom.1:1: 16:1). It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of slavery, a different emotional subject, a card which you just played to pull on the heart-strings of those readers. I call that deception, unless you did it ignorantly.

Paul distinctly said that a woman shall not have authority over a man. That one verse in and of itself prohibits her from being a pastor.

What about some others.
--husband of one wife? (Or does that mean she is a lesbian)?
--head of his own household, with his children in submission?

Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. (1 Timothy 3:11)
--How does that verse fit into this equation??

Oh, and about submission:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)
Unless you deny the Bible, it is in there!

 

[mandym]

DHK...

If you hold to the "women must not lead men, and must be silent and in submission" mentality, then dont think that you should must also be pro-slavery? Those two issues pretty much go hand in hand scripturally.

when you resort to overstating comparisons you have nothing to stand on.

 

[TCGreek]

Humor section. Yep!

 

[annsni]

I dont know what its going to take for us Baptists (and other evangelicals) to FINALLY see how horrible this extremely embarassing prejudice against women is.

It makes us look like a bunch of neanderthals. Its shamefull.

Actually I think that this might be about the ONLY thing that that wasteland of error known as "liberal protestant theology" has managed to get right. They allow competant women to be pastors.

The liberals got something right...Miracles can happen!

That is what the liberals have to say about ALL of the Christian beliefs: sanctity of life, fidelity in marriage, purity before marriage, honesty, holding each other accountable, church discipline. Yep - I definitely worry about how the world sees us Christians and if they think we're wrong, maybe we are!

NOT

 

[annsni]

DHK...

If you hold to the "women must not lead men, and must be silent and in submission" mentality, then dont think that you should must also be pro-slavery? Those two issues pretty much go hand in hand scripturally.

Here is an excerpt, from a baptist source, with a link to the rest....(bolding mine)






http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=777

Well, THAT group disqualified itself from being Biblical, huh?

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK...

What has "slavery" got to do with anything?

If you read the material and scriptures I posted from the link you will find out.

Its easilly understood.

I recommend you read the entire artical I linked to. It will help you to understand...provided you have a scripturally open mind.
If you have a scriptually closed mind it will do you no good at all...to your detriment, unfortunetly.

 

[annsni]

DHK...





If you read the material and scriptures I posted from the link you will find out.

Its easilly understood.

I recommend you read the entire artical I linked to. It will help you to understand...provided you have a scripturally open mind.
If you have a scriptually closed mind it will do you no good at all...to your detriment, unfortunetly.

You mean you need to closed to the Scriptures in order to follow their thinking. However, when you read the Scriptures, it's quite clear what it says. You see, when you take the stand of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, you must toss out certain passages of Scripture. I'm quite uncomfortable doing so.

 

[annsni]

"Jesus deliberately broke those barriers. He called women to follow him; he treated women as equally capable of dealing with sacred issues. Our model for the role of women in matters of faith is the Lord Jesus."

Where did Jesus put any of the women who surrounded Him in leadership positions? Where do we see Jesus taking the women with Him to pray? Where do we see Jesus sending out women two by two to do ministry? I'm sorry but the statement that I quoted above is a liberal twist to the truth of Jesus Christ and His ministry.

Jesus called 12 men to follow Him.

He kept men as His closest friends.

He never had women in His leadership.

He never put a woman over a man.

I will agree with the last sentence however. We will follow Jesus' example - and His further teaching through the letters of Paul.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Mandym...

overstating comparisons you have nothing to stand on.

Thats why I didnt post any overstated comparisons.

 

[Jerome]

Annsni, is Anne Graham Lotz a "LIBERAL!"?

Anne Graham Lotz, "A Privilege To Be an ‘Evangelical Feminist’," Washington Post, July 1, 2011

Evangelical feminists today, if I understand the term rightly, are rooted in the women of the Bible, beginning with Eve, who was given equal dominion over the earth with Adam . . . .and Mary Magdalene, a woman with a sinful past, who was commissioned by the risen Lord Jesus Christ Himself to be the first evangelist to the world

At the same link is a video interview:

"Anne Graham Lotz, Evangelical Minister, On Confronting Sexism Within the Church"

Mary [Magdalene] was the first evangelist, the first missionary, the first preacher. . .commissioned by Jesus following his resurrection. And I think Jesus was saying from the get-go, women are important, I'm going to use them. And somewhere in our religion we came up with these rules that are not based in what Jesus has said at all.