Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

Annsni...

Absolutly not. HEED the scriptures. But with an open mind, as opposed to simply accepting what is fed to you, undicerningly, simply because...the "teachers teach, and ...I believe"!

Somtimes TEACHERS..ARE..WRONG...no matter how sincere they are.

I do too. We are to heed the voice of Christ teaching us, not the voice of teachers.

Well, I would be too, if they are wrong.

Thats my whole point!

 

Annsni...

Search the scriptures with an open mind, Ann.

You know who said that.

 

Thats Iconoclast.

 

Jesus doesn't contradict His own Word.
He simply expects people to obey them, not try to fit them into their own little mold. When we hold some belief near and dear to our heart, and the Bible says otherwise we don't (like homosexuals and others) try to justify our actions by finding Scripture for it.

You can make the Bible say anything you want it to say:
Like:
God is dead (Psalm 14:1)
--Of course it is out of context, and any Scripture that justifies those things that go directly against the stated will of God is taken out of context whether it be homosexuality or female pastors. God hates one sin just as much as the other. Both cannot be defended with Scripture. People just try to justify their position with Scripture taken out of its context (proof-texting). It doesn't work that way.

 

DHK...

I posted to Annsni....

And you said...

And I agree with that 100%

Absolutly. I wish all christians would get with the program, and stop doing that.

Absolutely. Homosexuals, and others do indeed do that.

But, they are blind to the truth.

What is much MUCH more tragic is when Gods people...born again christians...do the same thing!

You can make the Bible say anything you want it to say:

I agree, except that putting "Female pastors" and Female teachers in with homosexuals is a slap in the face to all women, whom God pleases to use mightily in ministry....including as teachers (including teaching men), evangelists, and even excelant pastors.

Absolutley, however...homosexuality is a terrible sin. Women leaders, teachers and even pastors are a tremendous blessing.

Homosexuality cant. Women leaders certainly can.

I wish people like you and others would stop doing that.

 

Why? You have been Scripture, but you don't bother refuting it.
You simply give links of others who try to justify a sinful position.

There is no difference in sin. Sin is a transgression of the law (1John 3:4).
In God's eyes sin is sin.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)

 

Here is some enlightening information for your consideration...

1) The Corinthian Texts: “Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (I Cor. 14:34–35).


These two verses, when taken literally, contradict everything that Paul has taught and affirmed to this point. How can he acknowledge women praying and prophesying in the Church in I Cor. Chapter 11 without one word of prohibition or condemnation, and then in Chapter 14 tell them to keep silent? How were the women, whom Paul so warmly commends in Romans 16, to exercise their public ministry in the Church if such a “gag-rule” were in place?
The rationale given for silencing women is, “just as the law also says.” What law? None in the Old Testament. To the contrary, the laws of Moses are noteworthy for their egalitarian application: that is, they apply to rich and poor, bond and free, and men and women alike. The “law” here mentioned is not found in the scriptures, but in Judaism’s Mishna (“traditions of the elders”). How then do we reconcile I Cor. 14:34–35 with the even-handed way Paul treats men and women in all the passages we have surveyed to this point? We answer: With great difficulty! Scholars and biblical interpreters have struggled with this issue for generations.


The most likely explanation focuses upon the astonishing fact that women in the early Church were not only permitted—for the first time ever—to worship side by side with men but were given freedom to pray, prophesy, and participate in the services. It was the first and only public forum in their culture that welcomed such freedom of expression. Unfortunately, their newfound freedom bred excesses. Since women were illiterate and had been denied access to the scriptures, they may have been creating confusion and disorder through aggressive and noisy displays of ignorance. Consequently, they not only offended the sensitivities of male believers but were bringing reproach upon the Church in the eyes of non-believers. Thus Paul’s cautionary command.


In the light of Paul’s overall attitude toward women in the Church however, this passage is best interpreted as representing specific instructions to a particular problem-Church, and is not meant to be generalized as a universal rule binding upon all churches for time immemorial. It is ironic that most of the denominations which appeal to these verses for support in excluding women from preaching conveniently ignore Paul’s further command in this same chapter, “and do not forbid to speak in tongues” (14:39).


2) The I Timothy Texts: “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint” (I Tim. 2:11–15).


There is, not only a restatement of the injunction against women speaking in Church voiced in I Cor. 14:34–35, but a further rule: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” This is the proof-text most frequently cited by those who deny ordination and leadership positions to women in the Church. There is no question but that verse 12 asserts an externally imposed, gender-differentiated law excluding women from teaching and, thus, from all preaching and pastoral offices. This directive then is a clear call for the Church to order its life “according to the law” of Rabbis (I Cor. 14:34), rather than according to the grace which is “in Jesus Christ” (Gal 3:28). The rationale given for this prohibition is the “order of creation” by which the Jews defended female subordination: namely, man has preeminence over women because he was created first. We have already seen, in our study of I Cor. 11:8–12, that Paul rejects this argument out of hand. First, it does not reflect the believing woman’s standing “in the Lord.” Second, it ignores the fact that, after Adam, God Himself reversed the “order of creation.”


A second reason is offered which, again, owes its genesis not to any clear teaching found in either Testament but to Rabbinical tradition: that is, since “the woman, being quite deceived, fell into transgression,” she cannot be trusted with either teaching offices or leadership roles. This is a theologized version of “the weaker sex” argument. Paul, however, draws quite the opposite conclusion from the Genesis story of the fall in his other letters. In Romans he affirms that “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. . . . Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense” (Rom. 5:12–14; cf. I Cor. 15:21ff.). Adam, and not Eve, is responsible for the entrance of sin and death into the world. Eve may well have been deceived, but Adam was not. He disobeyed with his eyes wide open. His was a knowing, deliberate, and dispassionate act of sin. Therefore his guilt was the greater. Eve is not blamed by Paul: he does not so much as even mention her. So much for Rabbinical “blame the woman” theology.


This restrictive passage concludes with a patronizing statement in v. 15: “But women shall be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self- restraint.” The implication is that both a woman’s salvation and worth as a human being is dependent upon her biological function as a mother. Where then does this leave single or barren women, such as Mary and Martha? While this demeaning view was prevalent in Judaism, it is impossible to imagine Jesus reflecting such a low estimate of a woman’s status before God.


How then do we deal with these multiple problems? Again we say: with great difficulty. Some scholars argue persuasively, on the basis of careful stylistic, linguistic and historical grounds, that the Pastoral Epistles did not come directly from the hand of Paul but from a more fully developed Church such as we find in the early second century. Others suggest that this passage may well have been an interpolation by a later copyist.
Many conservative New Testament suggest that this may well have been a particular directive applied, once more, to a specific Church problem situation in Ephesus. That is, unlettered and unschooled women were voicing “strange doctrines, . . . myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation” (I Tim. 1:3–4), thus creating disorder and fomenting false doctrine. It was never intended by Paul to be a rule locking women out of ministerial leadership roles for all time. For example, in this same letter Paul counsels Timothy to “drink a little wine for your stomach’s sake” (5:23). Most Evangelicals do not take this as a universal command for all ministers to partake of alcoholic beverages. Rather, they understand it to be sound medicinal advice appropriate to that time and situation in which water was not fit to drink.


I feel constrained to point out a flagrant flaw in the logic of those who use these two passages to justify gender discrimination in ministry: and that is, nobody really takes the command for “women to keep silent in the Church” seriously. To the contrary, both Protestant and Catholic Churches would be irreparably crippled if women ceased to “speak”—that is, witness, testify, sing, teach, counsel, comfort, encourage, and serve in all sorts of ministries. Here is the question: if we are not willing to interpret this injunction against women speaking in Church literally, then on what basis do we draw the line at the point of women preaching? If women cannot be trusted to preach and teach the Word to adults, should they be allowed to shoulder the bulk of responsibility for leading and teaching children who are at the most impressionable and vulnerable stage of their lives?


We began our study by noting that positions supporting male dominance and female subordination in the home and Church are indeed “biblical:” that is, they are supported in the Bible. Our question, however, has been: do these texts represent the overall revelation of scripture which finds its fullest and final expression in Jesus? More specifically, do these specific texts, which circumscribe women’s role in the Church, reflect Paul’s underlying position?
Our answer has been: no!

These texts which discriminate against women do not represent God’s original intention for the race. Neither are they representative of the overall teaching and practice of the Apostle Paul. Further, they find no support in the teaching or example of Jesus whatsoever. And, for the Christian interpreter, the life, teachings, and example of Jesus is the ultimate criterion by which everything else in the Bible is evaluated and judged. Finally, they cannot represent a timeless and universal rule in the Churches that understand themselves as a Community of the Spirit. On the day of Pentecost Peter exults in Joel’s prophecy which celebrates the new freedom women will enjoy in the new age of the Holy Spirit: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,” and “upon both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy (proclaim, preach) (Acts 2:17–19).

The entirety can be found here...


http://www.ccel.us/place.praise.html

 

Top Ten Reasons Number One:

"ummm......because there is no such thing as "ordaining".
Its some kind of Roman Catholic superstition,
performed by men dressed as women.

 

I will tell you what is utter nonsense - your attempts to make void the plain teaching of God's Word by rediculous arguments that have no Biblical basis but contradict the Word of God and some of which simply deny the inspiration of God's Word - that is what is utterly rediculous!

The prohibition is in the public congregational context. Paul is not forbidding women to speak EVERYWHERE.

If we applied Galatians 1:8-9 to many whole denominations today wouldn't that also "irreparably" cripple the integrity of such denominations???? What a baseless argument!

The Biblical context has to do with the public congregation and public preaching to men. The Bible explicitly teaches that women are to teach other women and children! You are inventing another imagined contradiction to add to your already list of rediculous arguments.

Let me ask you a question? Are you not placing Paul's teaching about the submissive role of the women to her husband in the Home (Eph. 5:22-25) in direct contradiction to YOUR INTERPETATION of 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 1 Tim. 2??? According to your position the woman can Pastor her husband in the church but must be in submission to her husband "in all things" at home? Do you also reject Paul's teaching in Ephesians 5 as temporary, rabbanical, uninspired, and irrelvant to us today?

So, you have the woman at home in submission to her husband "IN ALL THINGS" in the Lord but in church the husband is in submission to his PASTOR WIFE "in all things" in the Lord? You talk about absolute nonsensical interpretation - that takes the cake.

I don't recall Jesus ever ordaining any women to be an apostle? I don't recall Jesus ever sending women out to preach?

I will tell you the problem here! It is a choice between what UNINSPIRED men like you say and what INSPIRED men say and I will take the INSPIRED instruction over your unfounded, unbiblical interpretations which contradict and deny the inspiration of scripture.

Funny, I don't recall Peter saying "your SONS and YOUR DAUGHTERS shall prophesy IN THE CHURCH"??????? That is precisely what you are implying but does the Word of God say that? No! It does not.

I don't think anyone who honestly evaluates your arguments with what the word of God actually says can embrace such arguments IF they believe the Word of God is INSPIRED. Here is what Paul says to those who take your position:


1 Cor. 14:36 ¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
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.

 

Dr. John Gill who is somewhat of an authority on Jewish writings says that the phrase "pray and prophesy" in chapter 11 refers to the worship service as it consisted primarily of praying and prophesying. This is born out in Chapter 14 where Paul lays emphasis upon prophesying as the cheif aspect of their congregational meeting. Hence, He is not contradicting himself at all but merely saying that when they take part in the worship service ("pray and prohesying" they are to do so under the leadership of their "head" (1 Cor. 11:3) signified by the symbol of submission on their head. They themselves are not leading in the praying or prophesying but rather are participating UNDER THE LEADERSHIP of the men.

You assumption of contradiction does not make sense when in fact the very design of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is for women to participate in the worship service by SUBMISSION to their "head." Think about it.

Hence, your whole argument here not only rests upon a supposed contradiction but a complete misinterpretation of the major emphasis in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 where submission of the woman to her "head" is emphatically being taught to the extent that she is to even visibly express it by her own hair and covering.

Moreover, there is nothing in 1 Corinthians 11 that says she is to LEAD in prayer or prophesying. Gill's interpretation is not only reasonable but perfectly harmonizes chapters 11 and 14 with Paul's additional teaching in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 as well as with the qualifications for the ordination of the Pastor and deacons in 1 Tim. 3:1-13.

Your attempt to reinterpret this by adding "rabbinical" law contradicts the very contexts of both 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14.

First, you conveniently ignore 1 Cor. 14:37 which explicitly states what he just instructed was "the commandments of the Lord" rather than rabbanical law.

1 Cor. 14:37 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.


Second, He is writing to a largely GENTILE congregation rather than Jewish and so appeal to "rabbinical" law has no appeal to these Gentiles as they never were instructed in "rabbinical" law.

Third, you are inserting "rabbinical law" into the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 when Paul makes no mention of "traditions" but rather states a matter of fact Biblical truth that anyone who reads Genesis 1-2 can readily see and Genesis is part of the Old Testament scriptures that is technically called "the law" (1 Cor. 14:35) as the Old Testament was often divided into "the law and the prophets."

Wow! Anyone reading Genesis 3:1-5 and then the confrontation of the Adam by God can easily see what Paul says is spelled out in no uncertain terms. It was the woman who led in the rebellion and Adam was explicitly condemned for following her. Neither does this contradict Romans 5:12 because Adam not Eve was responsible for leading (although he did not) and acted as our representative in his failure to lead and sin.

Gen. 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Wow! You are actually accusing Paul of instructing the Pastor at Ephesus - a GENTILE congregation of what you charge as a "patronizing statement" and "blame the women" mentality!!

Admittedly this verse is difficult but it does not necessarily have to be interpreted the way you interpret it. Remember what the curse upon the woman was for taking the lead over Adam?

Gen. 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Before the fall she was to bear children but because of her RESPONSIBLE role in the fall "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children."

Before the fall she was created in a SECONDARY submissive role to the man as his "help meet" without conflict but in the fall "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" and now sin causes conflict in this subordinate role.


Moreover, the term "saved" does not necessarily have to refer to justification before God and obtaining eternal life as that would contradict the very gospel Paul preached as he did not preach one kind of gospel to men and another kind of gospel to women. The term "saved" can also refer to their lives or the primary role that God has designed for them as "keepers at home" and raising children as their chief service for God just as Paul instructs a GENTILE preacher Titus when he says:

Tit. 2:4-5 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Note your digression! You start by ASSUMING contradictions in God's Word as the basis to argue against what it explicitly says, then you proceed to ADD to God's Word ("rabbinical") and now you suggest that it is not even INSPIRED by God. That is the progression first mentored by Satan in Genesis 3 to Eve. "Hath God said?"

.


Did you miss Paul's TWO uses of PLURAL "churches" in 1 Corinthians 14:33-34


33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches:


I guess Paul only wanted "peace" in a certain church rather than "ALL the churches" huh????

So, I guess such kind of women are limited to the apostolic age and they don't live in any other age huh??? Like Mary Baker Eddy? Like Ellen G. White? Like....... Furthermore, Paul does not say these are women doing this in 1 Tim. 1:3-4. In fact, he names TWO MEN as the examples of those doing that:

1 Tim. 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

You simply refuse to believe God's Word and are desperately fishing for anything to avoid admitting it is God's word - assuming contradictions, assuming this and assuming that. NOne of your assumptions stand the test of Biblical context.

My oh my what utter nonsense! Does Paul give this advice to "all preachers" or is he explicitly addressing one preacher who has a particular problem? Even you admit that he "counsels Timothy" rathe than giving counsel to "all preachers."

 

"Alive in Christ" did not provide any substantial arguments to do away with what Paul's words say and mean. If you take the position that God's word contradicts itself or is uninspired or you can add and take away from God's word as you please then the arguments he provides are just your cup of tea.

 

The Scriptures clearly teach that men are to be set apart unto the ministry by the congregation and its elders. However, that setting apart includes evaluation of their qualifications or fitness to take that position of leadership in the congregation (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1). The congregation is involved in the selection and qualifying of such men (Acts 6). The elders are involved with the public setting apart of those approved by the congregation by the laying on of their hands. This process is called ordaining. Jesus chose out twelve MEN and "ordained" them to be apostles. Jesus is still calling and setting apart men through the congregation (Acts 13:1-3).

 

Those characteristics fit every argument given by "Alive in Christ" and they will fit your arguments against the Pauline instructions as well.

Amazing, that out of one side of the mouth some proponents of women Pastors will say the Bible clearly teaches the submissive role of the PASTOR WIFE in the home to her husband in "all things" in the Lord but when she enters the church building it is reversed. Is the Pastor's office and role confined to the four walls of a certain physical structure?????

Is Ephesians 5:22-26 rabbanical? Is it uninspired? Is it just for the apostolic age that she is to be in submission to her husband AS THE CHURCH IS TO CHRIST?

Isn't the principle in Ephesians 5 consistent with the principle in 1 Cor. 11, 14 and 1 Tim. 2?????????

Does not your position make Ephesians 5 and Titus 2 and Colossians where the submissive role of the wife to the husband at home CONTRADICT your interpretations of 1 Cor. 11,14; 1 Tim. 2 of the role of the same wife in the congregation???? When and where does she JUMP out of one role into the other role with her husband???????