1,225 Ordained Southern Baptist Women?

P.S. And I do not berate anyone about their educational background.

 

I have taken three graduate courses on church history, and I have read Schaff from cover to cover (all 8 volumes) as well as significant portions of The Martyr's Mirror, and at least 30 other books on church history, not to speak of 75% or so of the issues of Christian History (the magazine).

I also have a B.A. in history and have taught AP US History, World History, AP American Government, Government/Economics, as well as several other courses. As far as someone WANTING a state church, there were state churches in at least VA, MA, and CT, and these continued for some decades after the constitution was ratified and put into effect. Jefferson's brief private note to the Danbury Baptist Association was in answer to their desire to get rid of the Congregational establishment in CT, which Jefferson did not even try to do, by the way. I think the last one to go out of business did so in 1833. That is why the 1st amendment said "Congress shall make no law...", since several states had established churches at that time, and the writers of the Bill of Rights wanted those first 10 amendments passed quickly. Having said all that, what does this have to do with anything?

I stand on the plain words of the Bible, not opinion. I have not mentioned master woodworkers or how the church in Byzantium was organized, or how any other church is organized, or any other such specious thing. Fromt the other side, I've seen nothing but obscure and indefinite references supported by human speculation.

I learned hermeneutics early on from several pastors and teachers under which I personally studied (I moved often in the Air Force during my 20 year career) and from schools and courses I attended, as well as from books. Here are the schools from which my pastors graduated"

Pastor 1--Toronto Bible College (AB), Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) (MDiv and DMin.

Pastor 2--Western Seminary (MDiv) and Westminster West--D.Min.

Pastor 3--Dallas Theological Seminary--MDiv, ThM, ThD

Pastor 4--Westminster (Philadelphia), MDiv, D.Min

Pastor 5--Dallas Theological Seminary, MDiv

Current Pastor--Mid-Continent Bible College (BA, and an honorary D.D. for his 30 years of service in the largest congregation in our area and for his preaching through the entire New Testament verse-by-verse twice in that period)

Here are some of the schools my theological professors graduated from: (their terminal degrees)

University of Manchester
New Orleans Baptist Seminary
Southern Baptist Seminary
Princeton
Dallas Theological Seminary
University of Southern California (philosophy professor)

I earned by B.A. and M.S. from secular schools in history and political science, and earned my M.A.R. from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I am currently working on a doctorate.

Some Hermeneutics texts I've read:

Toward An Exegetical Theology
Biblical Preaching (Haddon Robinson)
Expository Preaching (MacArthur, et. al.)
Biblical Hermeneutics by Henry Virkler
The Art of Prophesying, Perkins, (1606)


Now that we've gotten past the issue of my character and education, perhaps you will answer the following Biblical questions, and with Biblical evidence only.

1. If this is such a big deal, why did Jesus not appoint any female apostles--and don't tell me He did unless you have book, chapter, and verse that say so.

2. If this is such a big deal, why did Peter and the others not even nominate a woman in Acts 1?

3. If this is such a big deal, why did Jesus not call someone named Paulette instead of Paul?

4. If women are to be episkopoi/presbuteroi/poimenoi, why is that not plainly taught?

5. If chain of command makes no difference, why is the man referred to as the kephale and never the woman?

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. </font>[/QUOTE]A man who tries to impress someone with his credentials does not do much of anything other than just that.

I gave you a reference to look up and you want to argue your ignorance. It doesn't appear that you care to be challenged. If you read the Early Church Fathers and the letter from Pliny to Trajan I made reference to, you will discover a huge problem with your theology. You do not understand the role of deaconess in the early church. It is not anything like you have stated about other offices.

As far as my credentials I studied under several that wrote the books for class. I studied under the man who was the historian for the SBC for several years and wrote several books. It would amaze me at how you could come up with something very different than Dr.Leon McBeth. He has written several books on Baptist history and taught church history as well.

I'll bet there are several on this board who could give you credible refernces if you would be willing to consider them. But until then, it is a waste of time to try and tell somebody the truth when they will not listen.

"4. If women are to be episkopoi/presbuteroi/poimenoi, why is that not plainly taught? "

If you believe I wrote that then you are misunderstanding me or misquoting me. Because I did not. I believe that men are to be the pastors and the men are deacons. But even in scripture we even see places where women were recognized as special servants. In 112 A.D. in the letter from Plint to Trajan he mentions that the Christians called the two women he was referring to as deacomesses. In the Early Church Fathers you can reads about how women were used in ministry. It is right there in black and white. Your putting male and female deacons as one. They are not.

"5. If chain of command makes no difference, why is the man referred to as the kephale and never the woman?" Again ifg you do a search in the Early Chruch Fathers and church history you will see the distinction.

Even in scripture look up every word of gunh and see how it is used. Most often it is used with the same phraseology as Hebrew. In every case there is no dispute except in 1 TIm 3. I don't believe there is a dispute there either. I am sure you do know that over the course of church history several passages have been interpreted differently. Hermeneutics does not dictate that kind of practice. Good hermeneutics dictates that we correctly do our homework and come up with the answer that is correct even if we are uncomfortable with it.

I am sure if you read Virkkler, Corley and Ramm you would know that if you want to do a word study you take a look at how the word was used before the time period you are loking at, during that time period and after the time period to draw your conclusions. It is also helpful to see how secular society used the word as well.

You have tried to give refernces of people that support you. That's okay. But do you also know that there are some I have questioned in private and will tell you something very different than the party line. Those that have studied know but don't always tell. But they will tell people who really want to know.

I know personally a man who wrote a commentary for the SBC and they rewrote it to say what they wanted it to say and not what he wrote. He was disgusted. He even told me what some others stood for. This has happened to two writers I know who have written for the SBC and who do not anymore.

All I am asking you to do is to research the historical role of a deaconess. I see no evidence that you have done that.

 

You brought it up, not me--

All I am saying is that what any church did is irrelevant if it not biblical. The seven churches in asia were off on several things, as were most churches written to by Paul et. al. The word corrects the churches, not vice-versa.

 

I'm dealing with two people here...

 

You brought it up, not me--

All I am saying is that what any church did is irrelevant if it not biblical. The seven churches in Asia were off on several things, as were most churches written to by Paul et. al. The word corrects the churches, not vice-versa. </font>[/QUOTE]Your approach to scripture would make one question your practice as well. Using toilet paper is not biblical but I assume you do. Traveling in a car is not biblical either, but I assume you do. Eating with a fork, knife and spoon is not biblical, but I assume you do.

My Bible reads, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known."

"Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."

You are right, the practice must be biblical. It must stem from the message of scripture. But history will tell you the outcome of their faith.

Let me give you an example of something that was said just a few years ago. Often people said, "we are a NT church." but they failed to say which one. If you think about it, not one church today is nor has ever been a New Testament Church.

In Hebrews it reads, "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith."

If I study the history of the Christian church I can easily see the result of their beliefs.

If you do take a better look at Baptist history you will find that most Baptist churches in other countries do have deaconesses in their churches. Two of the Bible Churches in the area have deaconesses. The pastor is very fond of John MacArthur. The church that planted the other church has deaconesses and the pastor graduated from MacArthur’s seminary. Seeing as how you mentioned MacArthur. In his commentary on 1 Timothy he calls the women in chapter three deaconesses. What he believes doesn't sound anything like what you believe.

A.T. Robertson writes about these women, "
Women (gunaikas). Accusative with dei einai understood (hosautôs, likewise) as in verse
#8
Apparently "women as deacons" #Ro 16:1
about Phoebe) and not women in general or just "wives of deacons." See Pliny (Ep. X. 97) ministrae.

A.T. Robertson was a Southern Baptist shortly after the turn of the century who wrote that big thick Greek Grammar. He also wrote Word Pictures of the NT along with a few others. From what I know of him he is much more qualified than I to give an opinion based on his research.

I could go on and on. But you have given me no documentation or evidence to prove otherwise.

Personally I have looked at every word in the NT for wife and woman and have come to my conclusion as so many others have.

But it is clear that you have not taken the time to do the research to find out what ministries were done by women and how it was done and under what authority.

I have talked with many SBC pastors over the years and most of them will agree that there were women deaconesses in the early church. But they won't discuss it with people in the congregation because of fear. Often if you discuss that issue with people they will call you a liberal.

But a few years ago I gave a sermon out of 1 Timothy 3. In that congregation was an elderly retired SBC pastor. After everyone left he came up to me and said, "Young man I want to encourage you . That is the best sermon I have ever heard on that subject." Before I preached that sermon I gave it to people who I felt would disagree with me to see if there was something I was missing. Everyone of them agreed that there were deaconesses in the early church. One of them was offered a position at one of the SBC seminaries. Two of them were former professors in an SBC seminary. Another person is a Ph.D. students at Dallas Theological Seminary.

So again I am asking you to show me somewhere were women were not included in ministry. In fact women had a very vital role in early Baptist history. Early on women were not baptized by a male. Men were not even present. They were not allowed to be present.

When I first heard that women had a very vital role in the early church I was shocked because I was taught that men only had positions of leadership in the church. But when I challenged my self to ask some questions and the source of the information that contradicted what I had been taught I started learning what really happened. Finally it all came together. Each gender had a vital role in the church.

It is easy to support males as pastors both scripturally, anthropologically and practically. But also the same things point to women deaconesses. Imagine if a pastor never counseled a woman but a deaconesses did. How much adultery would we have by pastors and ladies in the church. But I have tried this and so many elderly women do not like the idea. They want to talk with the pastor. Every woman knew I would not visit them by myself. I never counsel a woman alone either. But there is never a problem with one woman alone with another woman.

I believe if we carried out ministry as the early church did, we would have built in safe guards against yielding to temptation and manipulation.

 

I Timothy 3:2

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

Notice the word husband, It's hard to be a husband of one wife, if your a woman!

Women preachers is not biblical! Sorry but that's the way it is!

Preacher Ron

 

It's hard to be single and be the husband of one wife, too.

So, single male pastors is not biblical, either. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Funny thing about logic--it's consistent.