Female deacons

[evangelist6589]

I imagine men are in some of their classes. I really don't know, since I am not concerned about it.

We have the New Testament examples of Priscilla teaching Apollos and Timothy being taught by his mother and grandmother.

We also have a few biblical examples of women preaching and speaking both inside and outside congregational meetings.

Your interpretations are not NT but are interpretations birthing from the feminist movement. The Bible says that a woman is not to teach or have authority over a man in 1 Timothy. It also says in 1 Cor 14 that she is to learn in quietness and not to speak in the church.

Look I have no problem with a woman teaching other women but she oversteps her bounds when she teaches men and churches use verses taken out of context to support their egalitarian agenda.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Your interpretations are not NT but are interpretations birthing from the feminist movement.

Glad you know more about my journey on this issue than I do.

I thought it was the result of approaching the scriptures as an agnostic back in college, working through all of the biblical materials while being careful not to bring any of the church practices with which I had been raised into my study.

After I had nailed down the important issues of the existence of God, the identify of Jesus, how humankind relates to God, and how to enter into the Kingdom of God (the life of Jesus), I looked at contemporary issues such as women in ministry.

I initially went with the viewpoint that women should not be in ministry leadership. Unfortunately for that view, I listened to the voices, scriptural exposition and logic of those who opposed women in ministry and found myself having to point out that they were not paying close attention to the New Testament. Moreover, the more I looked at the New Testament, the more I realized that those who advocated for the equal leadership actually were being more faithful with the New Testament materials (of course, not all of them, but many of the fine conservative scholars I studied). Then a book entitled "Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society" by E. Earle Ellis had a little chapter entitled "Paul and the Eschatological Woman" that was quite insightful and made sense of a few of the passages that were difficult for me to reconcile with either "side" of the issue. It was a 10-year journey of honest and open study in the midst of a church culture that was pushing for the view that women should not be in the leadership of the church. It would have been much easier to go that way and not be faithful to the New Testament message. More than 20 years after I tentatively settled on the position that women can honorably serve the church in any capacity with the blessing of God, I am more convinced than ever.

The Bible says that a woman is not to teach or have authority over a man in 1 Timothy. It also says in 1 Cor 14 that she is to learn in quietness and not to speak in the church

You like to purchase books. Why don't you pick up a copy of Earle Ellis' book. He was a good man - actually a member of my church until his death - and taught at Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth at the pleasure of Paige Patterson, a "conservative" leader.

As for the passage you allude to in 1 Timothy (specifically 2:9-12), the word translated "women" can be just as easily translated "wives" and refer to the wives of the mean who were preaching. In the early church, after a teacher finished their initial presentation, there was often a time of discussion where the members of the congregation would ask questions of the teacher. It seems that Paul was putting a prohibition against wives quizzing their husbands in such a way that might embarrass them. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the word "women" - just like in 1 Timothy - can be translated as "wives." We can be CERTAIN that the rules about women not speaking in church CANNOT mean what you think they mean since Paul specifically gave a rule just three chapters prior to the SAME congregation that women should have their heads covered whenever she prophesies (teaches/preaches/speaks) the word of God (see 1 Corinthians 11:5). If women are to be silent, then why the whole passage about women needing to cover their head? Paul could have just said right then and there that women shouldn't be speaking in church?

Listen, you brought up two passages that were troublesome to me because they kept getting quoted by my friends when they discussed women in ministry, but they did not want to touch the 1 Corinthians 11 passage because it thoroughly demonstrates that they are misinterpreting their proof passages. We MUST interpret the Bible in context, with the whole counsel of God. If you don't, then you don't really respect the Bible or hold it as an authority.

...churches use verses taken out of context to support their egalitarian agenda.

There's lots of agendas out there, including the agendas of the people with whom you agree.

Take a deep breath, be open-minded, and study the scripture very carefully looking for the conclusion you may want. Moreover, don't bash people with whom you disagree on this issue.

Once you get past the rhetoric, the issues get complicated because they are bound up in issues of ancient culture with which few of us are familiar. That's why we need the help of researchers who can help us understand.

If you come to a different opinion, may God bless you in it. As for me, I have to go with what God has allowed me to see in the scripture.

 

[evangelist6589]

Glad you know more about my journey on this issue than I do.

I thought it was the result of approaching the scriptures as an agnostic back in college, working through all of the biblical materials while being careful not to bring any of the church practices with which I had been raised into my study.

After I had nailed down the important issues of the existence of God, the identify of Jesus, how humankind relates to God, and how to enter into the Kingdom of God (the life of Jesus), I looked at contemporary issues such as women in ministry.

I initially went with the viewpoint that women should not be in ministry leadership. Unfortunately for that view, I listened to the voices, scriptural exposition and logic of those who opposed women in ministry and found myself having to point out that they were not paying close attention to the New Testament. Moreover, the more I looked at the New Testament, the more I realized that those who advocated for the equal leadership actually were being more faithful with the New Testament materials (of course, not all of them, but many of the fine conservative scholars I studied). Then a book entitled "Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society" by E. Earle Ellis had a little chapter entitled "Paul and the Eschatological Woman" that was quite insightful and made sense of a few of the passages that were difficult for me to reconcile with either "side" of the issue. It was a 10-year journey of honest and open study in the midst of a church culture that was pushing for the view that women should not be in the leadership of the church. It would have been much easier to go that way and not be faithful to the New Testament message. More than 20 years after I tentatively settled on the position that women can honorably serve the church in any capacity with the blessing of God, I am more convinced than ever.


You like to purchase books. Why don't you pick up a copy of Earle Ellis' book. He was a good man - actually a member of my church until his death - and taught at Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth at the pleasure of Paige Patterson, a "conservative" leader.

As for the passage you allude to in 1 Timothy (specifically 2:9-12), the word translated "women" can be just as easily translated "wives" and refer to the wives of the mean who were preaching. In the early church, after a teacher finished their initial presentation, there was often a time of discussion where the members of the congregation would ask questions of the teacher. It seems that Paul was putting a prohibition against wives quizzing their husbands in such a way that might embarrass them. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the word "women" - just like in 1 Timothy - can be translated as "wives." We can be CERTAIN that the rules about women not speaking in church CANNOT mean what you think they mean since Paul specifically gave a rule just three chapters prior to the SAME congregation that women should have their heads covered whenever she prophesies (teaches/preaches/speaks) the word of God (see 1 Corinthians 11:5). If women are to be silent, then why the whole passage about women needing to cover their head? Paul could have just said right then and there that women shouldn't be speaking in church?

Listen, you brought up two passages that were troublesome to me because they kept getting quoted by my friends when they discussed women in ministry, but they did not want to touch the 1 Corinthians 11 passage because it thoroughly demonstrates that they are misinterpreting their proof passages. We MUST interpret the Bible in context, with the whole counsel of God. If you don't, then you don't really respect the Bible or hold it as an authority.


There's lots of agendas out there, including the agendas of the people with whom you agree.

Take a deep breath, be open-minded, and study the scripture very carefully looking for the conclusion you may want. Moreover, don't bash people with whom you disagree on this issue.

Once you get past the rhetoric, the issues get complicated because they are bound up in issues of ancient culture with which few of us are familiar. That's why we need the help of researchers who can help us understand.

If you come to a different opinion, may God bless you in it. As for me, I have to go with what God has allowed me to see in the scripture.

I have studied the scripture and I have come to a very different conclusion than you and I am open minded I am just not open to egalitarianism. Yes we do need the help of researchers and that's why we have ministries like CBMW.org which I suggest you read. We also have books that scholars like Mac have written such as one called "Divine Design" among others.

I am not bashing you I am just being tough on the unbiblical ideas that you hold.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have studied the scripture and I have come to a very different conclusion than you...

Fair enough. It happens.

...and I am open minded I am just not open to egalitarianism.

You're open-minded except to the thing you are considering?

Yes we do need the help of researchers and that's why we have ministries like CBMW.org which I suggest you read.

you assume I haven't read opposing views. That's foolish. I am quite familiar with the CBMW. Paige Patterson, who I mentioned in my previous post, was quite instrumental in the founding and support of CBMW. Yet he thought E. Earle Ellis was a world-class scholar (he was) and had him teach at Southwestern Seminary - even his views on women in ministry.

We also have books that scholars like Mac have written such as one called "Divine Design" among others.

I am not as fond of MacArthur as you. I don't agree with most of his definitive positions. I have read MacArthur a fair amount through the years but I find him to be a sloppy scholar.

I am not bashing you I am just being tough on the unbiblical ideas that you hold.

Thanks for not giving me any credit for having done research of opposing views. Moreover, you can't even seem to comprehend that someone can read the same things and come to different conclusions.

Furthermore, I am more interested in what the Bible teaches. I couldn't help but notice that you didn't even try to reconcile the clear scripture about women praying and prophesying in church meetings against your interpretation of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14.

Why is that? Consider coming up with a solution to that issue before continuing to tell me how wrong I am.

 

[evangelist6589]

Fair enough. It happens.


You're open-minded except to the thing you are considering?


you assume I haven't read opposing views. That's foolish. I am quite familiar with the CBMW. Paige Patterson, who I mentioned in my previous post, was quite instrumental in the founding and support of CBMW. Yet he thought E. Earle Ellis was a world-class scholar (he was) and had him teach at Southwestern Seminary - even his views on women in ministry.


I am not as fond of MacArthur as you. I don't agree with most of his definitive positions. I have read MacArthur a fair amount through the years but I find him to be a sloppy scholar.


Thanks for not giving me any credit for having done research of opposing views. Moreover, you can't even seem to comprehend that someone can read the same things and come to different conclusions.

Furthermore, I am more interested in what the Bible teaches. I couldn't help but notice that you didn't even try to reconcile the clear scripture about women praying and prophesying in church meetings against your interpretation of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14.

Why is that? Consider coming up with a solution to that issue before continuing to tell me how wrong I am.

MacArthur a sloppy scholar? MacArthur a sloppy scholar? Go chase a rabbit Baptist Believer!!!

Well got that one out... I will look at your post later after I cool down.

 

[Rolfe]

MacArthur a sloppy scholar? MacArthur a sloppy scholar? Go chase a rabbit Baptist Believer!!!

Well got that one out... I will look at your post later after I cool down.

You react like this because someone does not revere John MacArthur? Wow.

 

[Salty]

You react like this because someone does not revere John MacArthur? Wow.

and I bet you dont do street evangelism either

 

[Jerome]

According to I Timothy, the purpose of a deacon is not leadership...

Yeah, deacons don't need proven leadership ability like the pastor, who according to I Timothy must be:

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

 

[Don]

MacArthur a sloppy scholar? MacArthur a sloppy scholar? Go chase a rabbit Baptist Believer!!!

Well got that one out... I will look at your post later after I cool down.

Evan - it's posts like this that cause people to accuse you of placing higher value on books and authors than scripture. See 1 Cor 2:5.

 

[evangelist6589]

Evan - it's posts like this that cause people to accuse you of placing higher value on books and authors than scripture. See 1 Cor 2:5.

Are you saying that Macs view on women in the ministry is not scriptural? What if I told you I have studied the scripture on the issue?

 

[Rob_BW]

Scholar? Aren't both of MacArthur's doctorates honorary? //sarcasm//

 

[Baptist Believer]

Are you saying that Macs view on women in the ministry is not scriptural?

I'm obviously not Don, but you need to realize that John MacArthur's views are not as highly regarded as you seem to think.

I was trying to be nice when I said he was a sloppy scholar. I see him as a guy who commits himself to positions and then attempts to find scriptural justification and arguments to support them. Sometimes I tend to agree with him (for instance, lordship salvation - although I he seems to think salvation is all about getting rid of sin and going to heaven), and most other times I don't (dispensationalism, Calvinism, young earth creationism, against all psychology, etc.).

What if I told you I have studied the scripture on the issue?

Who hasn't? I'm guessing that most people commenting on this thread have taken more than a casual look at the issue.

The fact that you seem to think that studying the scriptures will automatically lead to John MacArthur's views indicates you haven't really wrestled with the issues. it is possible to study the issue and come to different conclusions. If you would have checked with me 25 years ago, I would have held views similar to yours, with a few reservations. And I had studied the issues at that time as well.

If you assumed women should not be in leadership of deacon ministry, you will find evidence that can be used to support your view. If you go to the scripture without a presupposition, you will see that there is more to the issue than just a couple of "women keep silent" verses. You may not reach the same conclusions I do, but you will inevitably have a bit of humility about the issue.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Scholar? Aren't both of MacArthur's doctorates honorary? //sarcasm//

Yes. I don't judge a person's arguments based on their degrees, but he does not have the educational credentials to teach in many seminaries.

 

[evangelist6589]

I'm obviously not Don, but you need to realize that John MacArthur's views are not as highly regarded as you seem to think.

I was trying to be nice when I said he was a sloppy scholar. I see him as a guy who commits himself to positions and then attempts to find scriptural justification and arguments to support them. Sometimes I tend to agree with him (for instance, lordship salvation - although I he seems to think salvation is all about getting rid of sin and going to heaven), and most other times I don't (dispensationalism, Calvinism, young earth creationism, against all psychology, etc.).


Who hasn't? I'm guessing that most people commenting on this thread have taken more than a casual look at the issue.

The fact that you seem to think that studying the scriptures will automatically lead to John MacArthur's views indicates you haven't really wrestled with the issues. it is possible to study the issue and come to different conclusions. If you would have checked with me 25 years ago, I would have held views similar to yours, with a few reservations. And I had studied the issues at that time as well.

If you assumed women should not be in leadership of deacon ministry, you will find evidence that can be used to support your view. If you go to the scripture without a presupposition, you will see that there is more to the issue than just a couple of "women keep silent" verses. You may not reach the same conclusions I do, but you will inevitably have a bit of humility about the issue.

You hold to old earth views? Should I start a new thread?

 

[evangelist6589]

I'm obviously not Don, but you need to realize that John MacArthur's views are not as highly regarded as you seem to think.

I was trying to be nice when I said he was a sloppy scholar. I see him as a guy who commits himself to positions and then attempts to find scriptural justification and arguments to support them. Sometimes I tend to agree with him (for instance, lordship salvation - although I he seems to think salvation is all about getting rid of sin and going to heaven), and most other times I don't (dispensationalism, Calvinism, young earth creationism, against all psychology, etc.).


Who hasn't? I'm guessing that most people commenting on this thread have taken more than a casual look at the issue.

The fact that you seem to think that studying the scriptures will automatically lead to John MacArthur's views indicates you haven't really wrestled with the issues. it is possible to study the issue and come to different conclusions. If you would have checked with me 25 years ago, I would have held views similar to yours, with a few reservations. And I had studied the issues at that time as well.

If you assumed women should not be in leadership of deacon ministry, you will find evidence that can be used to support your view. If you go to the scripture without a presupposition, you will see that there is more to the issue than just a couple of "women keep silent" verses. You may not reach the same conclusions I do, but you will inevitably have a bit of humility about the issue.

Read the article that I wrote on this issue. Notice my sources section and that I used many different books (including those in favor of your view).

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/women_in_ministry.htm

 

[Don]

Are you saying that Macs view on women in the ministry is not scriptural? What if I told you I have studied the scripture on the issue?

I'n saying YOUR reaction and response places Mac in a category of "hero worship." Has nothing to do with Mac or scripture.

If someone disagrees with scripture, then your response was valid.

Just because someone disagrees with another man's viewpoints on scripture is NO reason to react the way you did.

And let's admit it: Mac is just another man. Unless you want to elevate him to the status of apostle, or something higher.

 

[evangelist6589]

I'n saying YOUR reaction and response places Mac in a category of "hero worship." Has nothing to do with Mac or scripture.

If someone disagrees with scripture, then your response was valid.

Just because someone disagrees with another man's viewpoints on scripture is NO reason to react the way you did.

And let's admit it: Mac is just another man. Unless you want to elevate him to the status of apostle, or something higher.

Oh no he is not inspired and I never said he was.

 

[Salty]

Scholar? Aren't both of MacArthur's doctorates honorary? //sarcasm//

MacArthur also received an honorary doctorate fromTalbot Theological Seminary[12] and an honorary doctorate from Grace Graduate School.[13]
No earned doctorate was indicated.

 

[agedman]

MacA, makes the distinction that elders and pastors are men only positions. However, deacons are not gender specific.

 

[Don]

Oh no he is not inspired and I never said he was.

Then when someone says they disagree with his writings and think he's "sloppy," why would you get so mad that you want to place that person on ignore? Or accuse them of disagreeing with scripture, when they said they disagreed with his interpretation of scripture?