Southern Baptist Megachurch Makes History Electing Woman to Pulpit

[Brother Bob]

Well, as long as she is the husband of one wife!!

 

[npetreley]

Well, as long as she is the husband of one wife!!

:laugh:

Good one, Bob.

 

[Zenas]

Baptist Believer says: "He didn't ordain men either... at least, before Pentecost."

Baptist Believer, what do you think was happening in John 20:21-22? I don't know about you but to me this looks a lot like an ordination.

 

[StefanM]

Which commandments?

1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6

 

[TCGreek]

He didn't ordain men either... at least, before Pentecost. And speaking of Pentecost, both men and women were in the Upper Room. Both men and women received the fire over their heads and preached in other tongues to the crowds outside.

Are we trying to make a case for women as senior pastors? I thought that issue has been settled already by the Scripture?

Just this evening my wife and I were talking about the occurrence of Acts 2. Though the Spirit was poured out on the women who were present, they were not set apart to be apostles, in the restricted sense of the word. Notice, that Peter got up with the Eleven and began to speak, not the 120.

The twelve were specifically commissioned for this occasion (Acts 1:7,8). The women were not present at that point and therefore not commissioned in this restricted sense.

 

[emelia_rose]

According to Scripture, a pastor is to be the husband of one wife:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2)

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (Titus 1:6-7)

This does not mean that women have no place in the church--but God has his order for men and women:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Women are not "called" to pastor churches--that is contrary to Scriptures.

 

[Allan]

He didn't ordain men either... at least, before Pentecost. And speaking of Pentecost, both men and women were in the Upper Room. Both men and women received the fire over their heads and preached in other tongues to the crowds outside.

Classic .

They PROCLAIMED the gospel only ONE preached, and his name was Peter.

They (men and women) did NOT go out preaching, actaully the text states they were speaking... and the people heard them speaking in their own tongues. They were proclaiming salvation to the people. Then Peter gets up and Preaches to those gathered about what the group from the upper room were talking about with them. They were talking about Jesus who was crusified, dead, buried, and now Alive... Is it any wonder the people thought they were drunk a little early.
<<<Edited in >>> Sorry TC I didn't see you spoke to the same point I just made.

It is of note that:
only men could be OT priests - OT
only men could be apostles - NT or 1 century Church
only men can be Bishops/Elders/Pastors - during NT and continuing after the death of apostles

It seems that God is the same yesterday, today (at the time of the NT writtings) and forever.

 

[Jerome]

"we are interested not in what Paul said, but in what Jesus did, choosing women to be his first evangelists" --Julie Pennington-Russell, quoted at Beliefnet.com.

 

[Brother Bob]

Mar 16:15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
They did not preach???? Seems to me they were commanded to preach by Jesus.

 

[Timsings]

1. What is the conflicting view concerning the death penalty?

I think this is pretty obvious. On the one hand, there is the long list of offenses for which death is the penalty in the OT. On the other hand, there is Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

2. Your second paragraph is exactly the ideals that have spawned several heretical movements. ie. Holy Laughter, Holy Barking like a Dog, Gays in the Pulpit, Holy Spirit Bartending, Holy Slithering, Were Little Gods, Faith Healings, Slain in the Spirit. And a mess of other ridiculous junk spread around by the Charismatics that spread into the Baptist church and into other areas.

Your typical argument goes like this...

Just because it is not mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that God is not in the movement. Yes it does, because if it contradicts scripture, than your views are going against God and the Bible. Its's that old "God in a box" discussion.

I'm afraid I don't understand this part of your response at all. I know what "God in a box" refers to, but I have no idea how Charismatics fit into this.

Tim Reynolds

 

[ShotGunWillie]

1. There is nothing contradictary there. I don't see it, sorry.


2. They adopt the same philosophy concerning scripture. The one that states, God changes with the times, and those that keep the doctrine are to blind to see that God changes the way He works.

God can do whatever God wants to do, I am not limiting God's ability, but God won't go against His Word either. That would make Him a Liar, would it not?

 

[Allan]

Mar 16:15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
They did not preach???? Seems to me they were commanded to preach by Jesus.

Brother Bob, are you addressing my post?

If so, you must look at context to determine to WHOM it was Jesus was appointing to PREACH.

Mar 16:14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Jesus didn't appoint nor ordain women to 'preach' anything.

Now if you were not referencing my post, just ignore me :thumbs: :laugh:

 

[Allan]

"we are interested not in what Paul said, but in what Jesus did, choosing women to be his first evangelists" --Julie Pennington-Russell, quoted at Beliefnet.com.

Are you trying to make a point with this quote, or are you just posting to show her line of logic?

 

[Timsings]

I was asked for my definition of a liberal. This low value of scripture is a prime example.

[This is going to contribute to the way this thread has started to drift, but I am not going to move it into another thread. I suspect this has all been beat to death before.]

I may be a social liberal and a political liberal to a lesser degree, but I am not a theological liberal. I suspect that most of the people who rail against "the liberals" have never met a geuine theological liberal. I have.

I don't think that is a matter of a high or low value of scripture. I think it is a question of how scripture is used. The Pharisees in Jesus' day and many of the posters on this thread seem to use scripture as an answer book. It's all black and white. There are no gray areas. Well, real life doesn't work like that because we're all human, and we don't have the capacity to know everything.

The problem with using scripture as an answer book is that scripture becomes the ultimate authority. "Scripture says it. That settles the matter." That has been the approach to dealing with the question of female pastors. But I have a problem with this. Using scripture in this way declares that it contains the complete and final revelation of God. If that is your view, then you have no reason to look for further words from God. I believe that God still speaks to us where we are. The question is whether we are prepared to listen. Using scripture as an answer book does not suggest that we are prepared.

I suggest that we begin with scripture, but that we need to look to God for guidance. And, we need to allow for the possibility that the word we receive may contradict scripture as we understand it. That does not mean that God has changed, or that scripture is wrong. It means that our understanding is flawed, and that God has more to say to us.

Remember the passage from Matthew 5.17-20. The passage begins with: "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but complete." It ends with: "I tell you, unless you show yourselves far better than the scribes and Pharisees, you can never enter the kingdom of Heaven." I see Jesus saying that the law and the prophets are a minimum standard, but our interpretation of the law (and that of the Pharisees) is flawed. Jesus wanted his followers to go beyond this minimum to a higher standard of righteousness. That means listening to what God is sying to us now.

Tim Reynolds

 

[Brother Bob]

Jesus didn't appoint nor ordain women to 'preach' anything.

Now if you were not referencing my post, just ignore me :thumbs: :laugh:_

Bro. Allen;
I hope I didn't make a statement that women were sent to peach. :BangHead:

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

[This is going to contribute to the way this thread has started to drift, but I am not going to move it into another thread. I suspect this has all been beat to death before.]

I may be a social liberal and a political liberal to a lesser degree, but I am not a theological liberal. I suspect that most of the people who rail against "the liberals" have never met a geuine theological liberal. I have.

I don't think that is a matter of a high or low value of scripture. I think it is a question of how scripture is used. The Pharisees in Jesus' day and many of the posters on this thread seem to use scripture as an answer book. It's all black and white. There are no gray areas. Well, real life doesn't work like that because we're all human, and we don't have the capacity to know everything.

The problem with using scripture as an answer book is that scripture becomes the ultimate authority. "Scripture says it. That settles the matter." That has been the approach to dealing with the question of female pastors. But I have a problem with this. Using scripture in this way declares that it contains the complete and final revelation of God. If that is your view, then you have no reason to look for further words from God. I believe that God still speaks to us where we are. The question is whether we are prepared to listen. Using scripture as an answer book does not suggest that we are prepared.

I suggest that we begin with scripture, but that we need to look to God for guidance. And, we need to allow for the possibility that the word we receive may contradict scripture as we understand it. That does not mean that God has changed, or that scripture is wrong. It means that our understanding is flawed, and that God has more to say to us.

Remember the passage from Matthew 5.17-20. The passage begins with: "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but complete." It ends with: "I tell you, unless you show yourselves far better than the scribes and Pharisees, you can never enter the kingdom of Heaven." I see Jesus saying that the law and the prophets are a minimum standard, but our interpretation of the law (and that of the Pharisees) is flawed. Jesus wanted his followers to go beyond this minimum to a higher standard of righteousness. That means listening to what God is sying to us now.

Tim Reynolds

I do not say this as an attack but it is clear from this post that you cre clearly a theological liberal. For conservatives the Bible is an answer book. The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it. You might try a study on Hebrews 4:12.

 

[SBCPreacher]

The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it.

If I may make a slight correction: The Bible said it. That settles it whether or not you or I or anyone else believes it or not. Now, to agree with you, I believe it. I believe it all - word for word! Even those parts I don't completely understand.

 

[dan e.]

I do not say this as an attack but it is clear from this post that you cre clearly a theological liberal. For conservatives the Bible is an answer book. The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it. You might try a study on Hebrews 4:12.

I am definitely conservative, but I do see a problem with viewing the Bible as simply an "answer book". Its form is not: Got a question? Here's your answer. There are so many types of genres and purposes for each book that make it more unique than just an answer book. It is more of a story that we can find answers in as opposed to an encyclopedia. I see dangers in viewing it as an answer book.

sorry for butting in on the conversation. I've been reading through it, but have not joined in yet. Didn't mean to just "jump in".

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Good post and well presented Ameleia Rose.:thumbs: I would like somewone to show me actual scripture for a lady pastor but I have never seen any .:godisgood:

 

[Jerome]

"we are interested not in what Paul said, but in what Jesus did, choosing women to be his first evangelists" --Julie Pennington-Russell, quoted at Beliefnet.com.

Allan, I thought it would be useful to hear the rationalization straight from the horse's mouth. Ms. Pennington-Russell is apparently willing to dump the teaching of the epistles and rely on Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene as precedent for her own ordination. Her putative logic is that since women witnessed Jesus' resurrection first and witnessed of it, they were Jesus' first evangelists.