1,225 Ordained Southern Baptist Women?

[Major B]

I don't go to early church history for support--would not want their support. The goal is to be what the Bible tells us to be. I don't see formal female leadership. Nor, do I see very many men qualified for formal leadership. In a sense, all believers are missionaries, preachers, and apostles, but the formal offices go to those qualified by the Bible.

And, the continued repitition of "apostle Junia" does not make it so. You need to cosider that all the arguments in favor of female leadership are obscure, indirect at best, and disputed. No doubt that the males were apostles, pastors, etc.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Taufgesinnter,

Thanks for pointing out scriptural evidence for women leadership in the church. Of course, some will never except such evidence, nor the earliest church history, if it runs contrary to their opinion.

If strict literalists who base their opinion on verses in I Timothy were consistent, they would never call an unmarried man as pastor.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Major B:
The word is used only once--here. It means "assistant," or helper (ATR). It would have been so easy to call her "Presbuteros." Didn't happen.

It's a word that typically means to govern or rule.

As for presbyteros, she would've been called that if that's what she was--she apparently wasn't. She was just a deacon; she didn't hold a high rank like the apostle Junia and her husband. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think of Phoebe as a deacon but a deaconess. If you say she is a deacon aren't deacons ordained in most Baptist churches?

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:


If strict literalists who base their opinion on verses in I Timothy were consistent, they would never call an unmarried man as pastor.

"mias gunaikos andra" means a MALE of the ONE WOMAN kind.

The "problem" with those who oppose the Biblical teaching is that the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of the traditional view that those opposed must use non-existent "evidence" and deny what is plainly taught.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Major B:
I don't go to early church history for support--would not want their support. The goal is to be what the Bible tells us to be. I don't see formal female leadership. Nor, do I see very many men qualified for formal leadership. In a sense, all believers are missionaries, preachers, and apostles, but the formal offices go to those qualified by the Bible.

And, the continued repitition of "apostle Junia" does not make it so. You need to cosider that all the arguments in favor of female leadership are obscure, indirect at best, and disputed. No doubt that the males were apostles, pastors, etc.

So you are saying that you can divorce the Bible form history. I would chalenge you to do that! You cannot divorce history from context and context from scripture. OTherwise you will get the clear sign of ignorance: "What does it mean to you?" It is never what does it mean to you, but rather what is the message. There is no message apart from context.

Would evidence as early as second century be good enough? Or how about for the first 1200 years of Christianity. The office deaconess developed greatly. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. 'In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses. (Book X, XCVI, 8, 289)

For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is much evidence of woman deacons in the church. However, the Western Roman Catholic church never had them. Whereas the eastern church did

Almost every country outside of the U.S. has women deacons in Baptist churches. Just ask them.

Does the US with a heavy Anglican and RCC background have the correct answers rather than those where Christianity began? Many Baptists in other countries do not seem to have a problem with women deacons (deaconesses)so why should the US Baptists? Are they wrong and we are right? Are we so right for a country that is only slightly over 200 years old. It seems to me that there is a proper place for women in minstry. I believe the early church had a proper perspective. Women were not pastors but could do any other job in the church.

Will you stop using a flush toilet because the Bible does not talk about it? There is no evidence for it.

It is a proven fact that in denominations where women assume no leadership roles the women work through the men to get done what they want. I have seen it happen over and over. Then they would come to the deacons meetings and repeat what their wives told them. You know the wives are the real leaders not the men. I have even heard women in church talk about how the men think they are the leaders but it is the wives who really are. They just badger the men until the men do what they want. Why do you think that so many pastors know that the majority of workers are the women while the men watch. Why do you think there are so many matriarchal churches in America?

Doesn't the US military and hospitals require ordintion or an endorsement for women to be chaplains for women?

 

[atestring]

If women are not to preach then do not let them preach on the mission field.
With God there is no Jew nor Greek or American or African etc...
Make the women be quite and do not let them sing in the choir , do not let them make announcements, do not let them sing in the congregation. Muzzle them !!!!!!!!!
How about letting women interpret for the deaf are they not speaking in sign language.
If they are not suppose to speak then Muzzle them now!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by gb93433:
So you are saying that you can divorce the Bible form history. I would chalenge you to do that! You cannot divorce history from context and context from scripture. OTherwise you will get the clear sign of ignorance: "What does it mean to you?" It is never what does it mean to you, but rather what is the message. There is no message apart from context.

Would evidence as early as second century be good enough? Or how about for the first 1200 years of Christianity. The office deaconess developed greatly. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. 'In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses. (Book X, XCVI, 8, 289)

For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is much evidence of woman deacons in the church. However, the Western Roman Catholic church never had them. Whereas the eastern church did

Almost every country outside of the U.S. has women deacons in Baptist churches. Just ask them.

Does the US with a heavy Anglican and RCC background have the correct answers rather than those where Christianity began? Many Baptists in other countries do not seem to have a problem with women deacons (deaconesses)so why should the US Baptists? Are they wrong and we are right? Are we so right for a country that is only slightly over 200 years old. It seems to me that there is a proper place for women in minstry. I believe the early church had a proper perspective. Women were not pastors but could do any other job in the church.

Will you stop using a flush toilet because the Bible does not talk about it? There is no evidence for it.

It is a proven fact that in denominations where women assume no leadership roles the women work through the men to get done what they want. I have seen it happen over and over. Then they would come to the deacons meetings and repeat what their wives told them. You know the wives are the real leaders not the men. I have even heard women in church talk about how the men think they are the leaders but it is the wives who really are. They just badger the men until the men do what they want. Why do you think that so many pastors know that the majority of workers are the women while the men watch. Why do you think there are so many matriarchal churches in America?

Doesn't the US military and hospitals require ordintion or an endorsement for women to be chaplains for women?

I get it;

The Gospel according to Pliny.

The Gospel according to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Gospel according to expediency.

The Gospel according to men who won't do what they are supposed to do.

The Gospel according to man.

I get it. Do you?

 

[Major B]

And furthermore...

After the "Babylonian Captivity" of the churches:

Incense ruled over prayer;

Priestcraft ruled over exposition;

Hierarchy ruled over Biblical polity;

Idolatry ruled over true worship;

Justification by faith alone and salvation by grace alone became forgotten doctrines;

Extra-Biblical Historical context trumping truth? Toilets? Are you reading your own responses? Is your mitre too tight?

"Jesus called to Himself the following female apostles..." Oh, he did not.

"The Holy Spirit through Paul established the following rules for choosing women deacons and elders..." Oh, that did not happen.

"God said that women not being able to occupy offices that most men are unqualified for as well made them second class..." OH, God did not say that.

I said that since women cannot be pastors or deacons that they cannot witness nor do anything else... Oh, I did not say that.

I will admit a woman's qualifications for eldership when she can biblically and lawfully (without sinning against another Biblical principle) be a man (andra) of the one-woman kind. No red herrings, no bluster; just Truth.

 

[Major B]

Oh, I must add this:

1,000 posts!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Major,

How can one discuss something with a person who has his mind made up with preconceived notions and will not even consider contrary evidence? I once believed as you do--many years ago--but intense study of scripture and the most ancient church history changed my mind. And my mind was changed because of evidence, prayer, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.--I didn't change it on a whim.

You claim to base your opinion on evidence, but I believe it is selective evidence.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Major,

How can one discuss something with a person who has his mind made up with preconceived notions and will not even consider contrary evidence? I once believed as you do--many years ago--but intense study of scripture and the most ancient church history changed my mind. And my mind was changed because of evidence, prayer, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.--I didn't change it on a whim.

You claim to base your opinion on evidence, but I believe it is selective evidence.

I've studied the Bible since 1973, and I've looked at this issue up one side and down the other. I find NO evidence for women holding the formal offices of deacon or pastor. The "selective" evidence would be:

* "How the _________ (you fill in the post-apostolic group) did it."

* "Well, since _______ and ________ seem to be doing some of the same things the apostles did, surely they must be apostles (or deacons, elders, etc.)."

* "If women aren't allowed to be _______, then they are second class citizens..." (Since I don't have babies, does that make me a second-class parent?)

The following is NOT selective:

1. When Christ appointed apostles they were ALL men. Was Christ a captive to society's prejudices? You don't want to go there, Christologically. As contrary to this world as He was in His earthly ministry, if He'd wanted to make this point, here was an excellent opportunity. I don't know His reasoning for this, since women were obviously heavily involved in His ministry group, but then again, God does not have to explain Himself.

2. When the lists of qualifications for choosing bishops/elder/pastors and deacons was given in 1 Tim 3 and for bishops/elder/pastors in Titus, a key qualification was to be male.

3. The BIG VERSE for those who try hard to contradict the truth above is Galatians 3:28, which has NOTHING to do with church leadership, but concerns salvation and our status before Christ as all equal.

4. All of the other verses I've found about eldership are either clearly male-oriented or they are NOT clearly anything else.

This all sounds like Genesis 3:1-16 all over again.

Michael, I wish there was other evidence to consider--I don't see it. You have given in to another view--if you can live with it, that is your place. However, until convinced by overwhelming Bibical evidence, here I stand.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
I once believed as you do--many years ago--but intense study of scripture and the most ancient church history changed my mind.

In other words, your authority was Scripture plus the tradition of the church.

Romanism anyone?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Major,

I said the most ancient church history, not post-second century.

Biblical evidence has been given you for women in leadership roles in the church; you dismiss it, ignore it, or say it doesn't mean what it means. If you can live with that, go ahead.

Not being harsh--just blunt because I'm pressed for time right now. More later.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Major,

I said the most ancient church history, not post-second century.

Biblical evidence has been given you for women in leadership roles in the church; you dismiss it, ignore it, or say it doesn't mean what it means. If you can live with that, go ahead.

1. If it is post Revelation chapter 22, it is tradition, not Scripture.

2. I've seen what passes for evidence: a few very specious and indefinite references, as opposed to a lot of very strong evidence to the contrary. The tail does not wag the dog.

3. I live fine with Truth.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Major B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
So you are saying that you can divorce the Bible form history. I would challenge you to do that! You cannot divorce history from context and context from scripture. Otherwise you will get the clear sign of ignorance: "What does it mean to you?" It is never what does it mean to you, but rather what is the message. There is no message apart from context.

Would evidence as early as second century be good enough? Or how about for the first 1200 years of Christianity. The office deaconess developed greatly. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. 'In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses. (Book X, XCVI, 8, 289)

For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is much evidence of woman deacons in the church. However, the Western Roman Catholic church never had them. Whereas the eastern church did

Almost every country outside of the U.S. has women deacons in Baptist churches. Just ask them.

Does the US with a heavy Anglican and RCC background have the correct answers rather than those where Christianity began? Many Baptists in other countries do not seem to have a problem with women deacons (deaconesses)so why should the US Baptists? Are they wrong and we are right? Are we so right for a country that is only slightly over 200 years old. It seems to me that there is a proper place for women in ministry. I believe the early church had a proper perspective. Women were not pastors but could do any other job in the church.

Will you stop using a flush toilet because the Bible does not talk about it? There is no evidence for it.

It is a proven fact that in denominations where women assume no leadership roles the women work through the men to get done what they want. I have seen it happen over and over. Then they would come to the deacons meetings and repeat what their wives told them. You know the wives are the real leaders not the men. I have even heard women in church talk about how the men think they are the leaders but it is the wives who really are. They just badger the men until the men do what they want. Why do you think that so many pastors know that the majority of workers are the women while the men watch. Why do you think there are so many matriarchal churches in America?

Doesn't the US military and hospitals require ordination or an endorsement for women to be chaplains for women?

I get it;

The Gospel according to Pliny.

The Gospel according to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Gospel according to expediency.

The Gospel according to men who won't do what they are supposed to do.

The Gospel according to man.

I get it. Do you? </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps it would help if you were to take a look at church history. Certain parts of it have made an impact of American philosophy and theology. Perhaps you do know about when the US was first settled and how three denominations wanted to set up a state church.

Just as when I had learned woodworking and thought I was quite good and quite proud of it until one time I decided to study at a school where the teacher has some of his work on display in the Smithsonian. One of the fist lectures by the master was on how most of us were taught wrong. I thought to myself that what he was saying was arrogant. Until he proved it by teaching and showing us by example of the right way to do things.

From what you wrote I guess it would be futile to try and convince you of anything else other than your own ways. But you may want to check out the references and make an honest effort to do some work to correct me if you believe I am wrong instead of some sarcastic remarks that are simply your unsupported opinion.

Could you give me some documentation to support your viewpoint other than just your opinion. Unless you can I just have to call it what it is--unverifiable opinion.

Perhaps you could even give me the name of a book on hermeneutics that would help me to better understand how you personally interpret rather than the way I was taught. .

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Major,

Tradition, perhaps, but not Romanism as you intimated in your previous post. I don't elevate tradition to the same level as scripture, but do you suppose the Bible was dropped down out of heaven already completed, like the Mormon plates of Moroni, awaiting discovery by the apostles? The scriptures weren't produced in a vacuum; further, human consensus decided which writings were scripture. Even if you believe the scripture is self-authenticating and that the Holy Spirit led in this consensual process--which I believe, too--the fact is that it was a process in which reason, tradition, and experience all played a part. It is true that no book which was widely rejected made it into the canon; it is equally true that a few books which were widely read and accepted did not make it in, such as the Shepherd of Hermas.

I'm glad you live fine with Truth; funny thing about Truth, though--it does not belong exclusively to one person.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by gb93433:

Perhaps it would help if you were to take a look at church history.

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).

Certain parts of it have made an impact of American philosophy and theology. Perhaps you do know about when the US was first settled and how three denominations wanted to set up a state church.

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?

From what you wrote I guess it would be futile to try and convince you of anything else other than your own ways. But you may want to check out the references and make an honest effort to do some work to correct me if you believe I am wrong instead of some sarcastic remarks that are simply your unsupported opinion.

Could you give me some documentation to support your viewpoint other than just your opinion. Unless you can I just have to call it what it is--unverifiable opinion.

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.

Perhaps you could even give me the name of a book on hermeneutics that would help me to better understand how you personally interpret rather than the way I was taught. .

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.

[ January 09, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Major B ]

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Tradition, perhaps, but not Romanism as you intimated in your previous post. I don't elevate tradition to the same level as scripture, but do you suppose the Bible was dropped down out of heaven already completed, like the Mormon plates of Moroni, awaiting discovery by the apostles?

No, I believe the Holy Spirit breathed the very words into the writers, and the Holy Spirit guided the canonization process.

The scriptures weren't produced in a vacuum; further, human consensus decided which writings were scripture. Even if you believe the scripture is self-authenticating and that the Holy Spirit led in this consensual process--which I believe, too--the fact is that it was a process in which reason, tradition, and experience all played a part.

I believe the Holy Spirit guided the process. If He'd wanted Eusebius, et. al. to be part of it, He'd have seen to it.

It is true that no book which was widely rejected made it into the canon; it is equally true that a few books which were widely read and accepted did not make it in, such as the Shepherd of Hermas.

So....?

I'm glad you live fine with Truth; funny thing about Truth, though--it does not belong exclusively to one person.

You write as if I were some hair-shirt prophet with a big sign that says "repent" and were sitting on a pole by myself someplace. I am a complementarian, and the position I hold is held by a large number of evangelical leaders, e.g., the board of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, as well as by the majority of Southern Baptist, PCA, OPC, RPCES, GARB, CBA, etc, etc, pastors and teachers. I don't believe it because they do, and none of them believe it because I do--we just read the same Bible and have congruent hermeneutics. So, advocate your position, which I know is held by others with whom I disagree (The Council For Biblical Equality, the Kruegers et. al.), but have enough respect for my well-read and well studied position to address this without implying I'm some sort of uneducated oaf.

 

[Major B]

If you want to check out who the other weirdo folks like me are, try this link.

http://www.cbmw.org

Here is a partial list


CBMW Board of Reference

Danny Akin
Gleason Archer
Hudson T. Armerding
Harold O. J. Brown
Edmund Clowney
Nancy Leigh DeMoss
Jerry Falwell
John M. Frame
W. Robert Godfrey
Carl F. H. Henry
R. Kent Hughes
S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.
D. James Kennedy
Beverly LaHaye.
Gordon R. Lewis
Crawford & Karen Loritts
Erwin Lutzer
John MacArthur
Richard L. Mayhue
J. P. Moreland
Stephen & Heather Olford
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.
J. I. Packer
Paige Patterson
Dennis & Barbara Rainey
Pat Robertson
Adrian and Joyce Rogers
Thomas Schreiner
Bob Slosser
R. C. Sproul
Joseph M. Stowell, III
John F. Walvoord

I don't mind being on the same side of this group. Maybe they are uneducated oafs as well...

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Major,

You said, "...but have enough respect for my well-read and well studied position to address this without implying I'm some sort of uneducated oaf."

When did I imply that? I have not questioned or addressed your educational level at all.