Amen!!!!Originally posted by av1611jim:
My My.
David, you are something aren't you?
May I ask? Who made thee ruler over our understanding?
Accusing folks of borderline blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?
My, my.
You may look a little at some other sources besides your own understanding.
Prov. 3:5-6
Nobody said women should not be preachers. In fact some have even said they may and should be, as all believers should.
They just have no business pastoring a local new testament church.
In His service;
Jim
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So, if women are not supposed to preach.................
- Thread starter n/a
- Start date
Dear jim,
I'm still confused about this separation of pastor and preacher as to how it works out in church.
Although many SAY women can and should be preachers, I doubt they would approve if the pastor announced that next Sunday morning the preacher would be Anne Graham Lotz.
In my state, a number of SBC pastors turned their chairs around or left when Mrs. Lotz spoke at a conference several years ago. She was not the only speaker, and she had the approval of many pastors there. The reason given was that she was a woman. That a woman cannot preach.
Karen
Of course then there are people like yourself who presume to tell God what he can or cannot do without using the Bible which God gave to us. The Bible is given to us for a reason: To learn about who God is and what he wants us to do. God is the one who said women should not have authority over a man. We are not scared of that. I would, in fact, be scared of disobeying that, as you should be.
Never presume to set your own mind about the word of God, as you have done here. When God speaks, he means it.
Johnv said:
"SBC churches must adhere to SBC matters of faith and practice. Otherwise, they wouldn't be SBC churches. Women preachers is one of those items."
The BF&M is not binding on invidual churches or members. Unless a church requires affirmation of the confession (which as an autonomous body, it may do), it is not binding on members.
It can be binding on denominational agencies, which is becoming more and more the case.
The wording you are talking about is in the BF&M 2000. Many SBC churches have rejected the 2000 emendations and prefer to remain with the 1963 version. And they're still SBC churches.
As a practical matter, however, women pastors are extremely rare within the SBC, and their selection would likely cause disfellowship at the associational, state or convention level.
"SBC churches must adhere to SBC matters of faith and practice. Otherwise, they wouldn't be SBC churches. Women preachers is one of those items."
The BF&M is not binding on invidual churches or members. Unless a church requires affirmation of the confession (which as an autonomous body, it may do), it is not binding on members.
It can be binding on denominational agencies, which is becoming more and more the case.
The wording you are talking about is in the BF&M 2000. Many SBC churches have rejected the 2000 emendations and prefer to remain with the 1963 version. And they're still SBC churches.
As a practical matter, however, women pastors are extremely rare within the SBC, and their selection would likely cause disfellowship at the associational, state or convention level.
There is a difference betweeen a pastor-teacher and a teacher.
Deborah was a prophetess in the OT. Judges 4:4-14.
Also take a look at 2Kings 22:14; 2Chron. 34:22
The problem is you have people arouind you who want to promote a party line and not study scripture. So they simply do not study. I can name for you two trustees at SWBTS. One is a current trustee and the other has died. But when I talked with them about these issues they just skirted the issue and walked off.
The conclusions I came to were through a study of the words for pastor and teacher along with a historical study of the word for elder from the time of OT through the NT into about the second century. As I studied I came across things that I was never taught. In some cases I was taught quite the opposite. For the next several years at every opportunity I read books that opposed one another and read their sources. I read the Early Chruch Fathers on the ministries of a deacon, deaconess, and pastor. As I learned new things I didn't find very many pastors willing to talk about those issues. I finally came to the conclusion that the majority of pastors are content to leave things alone and not confront the error with truth. Some told me they knew the issue and agreed with me but saw no need to make any changes for fear it would rock the boat too much.
Three of the most evangelistic and godly churches I have been in have had deaconesses and deacons.
Dear jim,
I'm still confused about this separation of pastor and preacher as to how it works out in church.
Although many SAY women can and should be preachers, I doubt they would approve if the pastor announced that next Sunday morning the preacher would be Anne Graham Lotz.
In my state, a number of SBC pastors turned their chairs around or left when Mrs. Lotz spoke at a conference several years ago. She was not the only speaker, and she had the approval of many pastors there. The reason given was that she was a woman. That a woman cannot preach.
Karen </font>[/QUOTE]Karen;
You have hit the issue, bull's eye!
How it works out is the problem.
Most pastors I know will not let a woman in the pulpit for an official service like sun. morn., sun. eve., or wed. evening. I am guessing that perhaps they believe it may cause confusion. I don't know. I do know many pastors will allow women to preach/teach in others venues however. For example, when addressing children or other women. In our churches, a woman may not teach/preach to men, I assume as a very literal interpretation of the authority thing.
One may disagree with this practice. That's ok by me. After all, we are all admonished to "be fully persuaded in one's own mind" (please don't get on this context thing. I think you folks know the application I am making here.)
But this does not negate the mandate Jesus gave all believers to preach the gospel. Nor does it negate the apparent practice in new testament history.
In His service;
Jim
DavidFWhite3
New Member
When you go to church do you wear a tunic? In several places a tunic is mentioned. What gives you the right to ignore certain passages over others too? Do you wear sandals too? </font>[/QUOTE]Forgive me for assuming you would automatically recognise the passages I'm refering to in 1 Corinthians.No where in those passages does it give instructions for men to where tunics or sandals, so I fail to see any logic whatsoever in your remarks. In those passages Paul instructs the church on many issues, some of them regarding women, or a certain group of women in the Corinthian Church. My point is: If we are going to quote Paul, from Corinthians or Timothy, as a biblical support for excluding women from pastoral ministry, we should be consistent. I find Fundamentalists to be inconsistent all of the time. For example, they rush to quote Paul so they can oppress women, but completely ignore him when he says its OK and good to speak in tounges.Another example: they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 but freely use allegory and symbolism when interpreting Revelation.Talking snakes and magic fruit are real, but dragons are not. I find Fundamentalists to be the worst of all when it comes to picking and choosing which passages of scripture to follow or ignore.
DavidFWhite3
New Member
Thanks for becoming ruler over my understanding Jim. I should have known that adhering to Fundamentalism is what gives one the ability to have perfect understanding.Originally posted by av1611jim:
My My.
David, you are something aren't you?
May I ask? Who made thee ruler over our understanding?
Accusing folks of borderline blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?
My, my.
You may look a little at some other sources besides your own understanding.
Prov. 3:5-6
Nobody said women should not be preachers. In fact some have even said they may and should be, as all believers should.
They just have no business pastoring a local new testament church.
In His service;
Jim
It may be unpleasant to have your inconsistencies and hypocrisy revealed, but it is so obvious to anyone why actually reads everything the bible says about women, in both old and new testaments.
If this is an authority thing, what about Deborah? Remember her? Judges 4:4 "Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Isreal at the time." How can one be a judge without authority?
DavidFWhite3
New Member
Of course then there are people like yourself who presume to tell God what he can or cannot do without using the Bible which God gave to us. The Bible is given to us for a reason: To learn about who God is and what he wants us to do. God is the one who said women should not have authority over a man. We are not scared of that. I would, in fact, be scared of disobeying that, as you should be.
Never presume to set your own mind about the word of God, as you have done here. When God speaks, he means it. </font>[/QUOTE]Phoebe: A deacon of the Church which is at Cenchrea, Romans 16:1
Deborah: A judge over Israel, Judges 4:4
Paul said a woman should not have authority over a man. He also is credited with saying "In Christ there is niether male nor female. So what is God saying? I look to Jesus to help me figure it out, and the only incident that gives us indication is in Luke 10. Mary is welcome with the apostles, and it is Jesus who insists she be allowed to stay. It is women who first see Him alive and are the first to proclaim the essence of the Gospel, that he is risen.
I could go on but I am accustomed to Fundamentalist like yourself "explaining away" pasages that don't fit into your Man-made systems. I will challenge your absurd doctrine that God reveals himself by writing a book, any time, any day, by showing you from the book itself that we do not need a perfect book to believe in a perefect God. How do I know this? Because God is perfect and as much as I love the Bible, it is not. The difference between you an me is simple. I love the Bible more than you do. I am not afraid to accept it for what it is, and do deal with all of it, not just the parts that confirm my bigotries and prejudices. If you mean what you say,"When God says something he means it", then why are you not out advocating the death penalty for adultery, blasphemy, dishonoring parents, and 15 other offenses not including murder? If the Bible says to do it then God says to do it. Right?
In Genesis 1 the animals are made first but in Genesis 2 the man is made first. Read it for yourself. Which creation account did God mean to be taken literally? The first or the second. It can't be both.
In Matthew Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem. Jesus is born there and they flee to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath. Then they go to Nazareth because it is not safe to go back to Bethlehem. But in Luke Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth and go to Bethlehem to be registered for the tax, go to Jerusalem eight days after Jesus is born, then immediately go back to Nazareth. Which story is literally true?
If the Bible was perfect and totally consistent on all matters of theology there would be no debate about election and free will because there would not be the various passages that lead to different conclusions. I could go on and on but what is the point of trying to just ask you to be honest with the texts, when I know you won't.
God reveals himself by annointing men and women to be his prophets, his rulers, his servants of every kind. He reveals himself in his mighty deeds. He ultimately and perfectly reveals himself in Jesus Christ. The books, which make up the Bible, are written by men in response to what God has done. The Bible is not the act of God Himself, but it is a magnificant collection of literature that attempts to record and interpret God's personal involement and participation in human history. If the Bible were in fact God's perfect revelation of Himself, it would be perfect, and it is not. It is not uniform in theology, nor history, and certainly not perfect in matters of science, but the beauty of the Bible is that it doesn't have to be for God to come shining through, his perfect will there to be discovered.
So it is you who tell God what he can and can't do. You say God cannot call a woman to be a pastor because the bible says this or that. All God has to do is call one and fill her with his spirit for you to be proven wrong. And I have seen the great work of God done in and through female pastors. You blind yourself to God's work in our time. Your foolish man made traditions and doctrines about the bible blind you to its deeper truths, and cause you to fight against good and wonderful movements of the Holy Spirit. I truly pitty you.
One last word for you. What is this thing with authority? You just have a low view of women, not a high regard for scripture or you wouldn't be so blind to so much that is there. In the church of Jesus Christ he is the authority and he gives his spirit freely. We are to serve each other, not lord it over each other.If a woman leads a church to do the things Jesus said we must do, and if that church does indeed do the things Jesus said his followers would do, she is a pastor, and the fruits of her labor prove she is a pastor.
Dave
The word "deacon" means servants. Women and men have always been servants in the church. But the office of deacon is filled with men who are the husband of one wife according to the Bible.
Who did not serve in the church.
He is saying that men do not have higher spiritual status then women do. That was a radical elevation of womenhood in the first century. Women were looked down on and relegated to second class status. Then along comes Christianity with the radical teaching that women have equal spiritual standing with men. The Bible actually shows a very high view of women. But that does not address their function. In that same verse, slaves did not become masters did they? Jews didn't become Greeks did they? Of course not. That is why your understanding is inadequate. It cannot apply to the other pairs that Paul puts forth.
This "absurd" doctrine is the historic teaching of Christianity. It is based on the biblical truth that it is impossible for God to lie.
Apparently not. I can't imagine the arrogance that claims you love the Bible more than me. You have no way of measuring that. That tells me you have way too high an opinion of your own mind. I would suggeset that you have not accepted it for what it is ... the very word of God that performs its work in you who believe. You do not appear to have accepted what Psalm 19, 2 Tim 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:19-21 say about it.
If you think about what part ofthe Bible you just quoted, then you will know why. That was the Law given to Israel. We are not Israel. The NT says we are not under the Law. That is why.
This opinion of yours is based on a misunderstanding of hte verb tense in Gen 2. It is an old argument that cannot be taken seriously.
There is no contradiction. You are inserting things into the text that are not there. These are old arguments that are now laughed at by people who have taken the time to study the word.
That is simply not true. You cannot mistake perfection of character with perfection of understanding. We as men have finite minds. God has not revealed all things to us. One of your claims is likely that the Bible is not a textbook on science and history and other matters. Therefore, it doesn't tell us everything, leaving some of that to science and history to tell us. But then on a matter like this, you want to argue that God should have told us everything in order to be perfect. That simply doesn't make sense. But be that as it may, I do not believe there is much of a debate about election and free will. I think the Bible is clear.
This kind of argument is old hat to me. I have been through this dozens and dozens of times, and in every case, it has always come down to the fact that people on your side simply are not willign to accept what the Bible teaches about itself. I have been totally honest with the text. I have already pointed out several places where you have not been. If you are going to doubt the word of God and throw shados on its character, you will have to come with more than these tired worn out attempts.
This position involves a direct denial of the Bible itself. If these men were not acting under the "act of God," then they are liars.
I have done no such thing.
I didn't say God cannot. I said he does not ... He does not call peope to go against his revealed will. God will no more call a woman to pastor over men then he will call a husband to commit adultery on his wife. God has already spoken clearly about both issues.
God has done wonderful work through women. He has also done wonderful work through a donkey. Do you really want to go down that road? The fact that God works his will in spite of our disobedience does not justify our disobedience.
Strangely enough, i have yet to appeal to one man made tradition. I have appealed only to Scripture. If that draws your pity, then I will gladly accept it.
[qutoe]What is this thing with authority?[/qutoe]Whjat "thing" with authority are your referring to? All I did was quote Scripture.
Not at all. I actually have a very high view of women. I would never degrade a woman by asking her to do a man's job. I would never denigrate a woman by asking her to do something for which God neither called her nor equipped her. I am thankful for godly women in this church who minister so effectively and take a huge load off of me. A high view of women is wholly inconsistent with asking them or allowing them to disobey God.
David said,"It may be unpleasant to have your inconsistencies and hypocrisy revealed, but it is so obvious to anyone why actually reads everything the bible says about women, in both old and new testaments."
Ok, David.
You have laid down the gauntlet. I shall pick it up.
So I am inconsistent with everything the Bible says about women?
Lev 12
And the Lord spake unto Moses saying,
Speak unto the children of Isreal saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the seperation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circuncised.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her seperation: she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three score and six days.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation unto the priest
Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons: the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her and she shall be clean.
So David, to be consistent with "everything" do you require this of women?
Give me a break please.
You sir, I submit, are hopelessly confused.
In His service;
Jim
Ok, David.
You have laid down the gauntlet. I shall pick it up.
So I am inconsistent with everything the Bible says about women?
Lev 12
And the Lord spake unto Moses saying,
Speak unto the children of Isreal saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the seperation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circuncised.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her seperation: she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three score and six days.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation unto the priest
Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons: the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her and she shall be clean.
So David, to be consistent with "everything" do you require this of women?
Give me a break please.
You sir, I submit, are hopelessly confused.
In His service;
Jim
sandrocksam
New Member
Phil 1
16 The one preach Christ of contention,
not sincerely, supposing to add affliction
to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I
am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every
way, whether in pretence, or in truth,
Christ is preached; and I therein do
rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
16 The one preach Christ of contention,
not sincerely, supposing to add affliction
to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I
am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every
way, whether in pretence, or in truth,
Christ is preached; and I therein do
rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.