Women deacons

[Thomas Helwys]

And this quote bears repeating because it is scriptural, and it shows the true meaning of the words involved, which cannot be denied:

"Phoebe (a woman in the church at Cenchrea, neighbor to Corinth) is called by the MASCULINE TITLE "deacon" (not simply as a feminine form of the word, which would be a female servant)

Phoebe was a deacon. Even though I'm an historic ifb'er and have only male deacons, I can't change Romans 16.

It is the definite masculine word referring to the OFFICE.

 

[12strings]

And there's just something about verse 12 that pretty clearly says "men only".

It also pretty clearly says "married only" (or perhaps widowed).

Do you think single men can be deacons?

 

[OldRegular]

This charge that women's ordination is a liberal position is absolutely false. The Holiness churches which are very conservative and have been from the beginning have also been ordaining women from the beginning, and that's been for a hundred years. Also, the pentecostals.

And as shown from the Thomas Helwys confession of faith, the first English Baptist confession, the General Baptists believed in women deacons. Anyone want to call them liberal? This charge of "liberal" is only used to discredit people and as a smokescreen.

All depends on how you define liberal and I would not necessarily call Pentecostals liberal. When it comes to the Bible I rarely use the term liberal or conservative. Frankly what others believe is not going to affect my belief. To me it is whether one believes what Scripture tells us.

1 Timothy 3:12 tells us:

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

That is a very clear and straightforward statement. There have been people in the past who rejected the Virgin Birth, the deity of Jesus Christ, the humanity of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and some still do. Now there are people who believe it is acceptable for women to be preachers; for homosexuals to be preachers, even Bishops; for homosexuals to marry; frankly it has become quite common for people to accept the idea that the Bible is simply a collection of stories and people, even professing Christians, are free to discard those stories they don't care for, like 1 Timothy 3:12.

 

[OldRegular]

And this quote bears repeating because it is scriptural, and it shows the true meaning of the words involved, which cannot be denied:

"Phoebe (a woman in the church at Cenchrea, neighbor to Corinth) is called by the MASCULINE TITLE "deacon" (not simply as a feminine form of the word, which would be a female servant)

Phoebe was a deacon. Even though I'm an historic ifb'er and have only male deacons, I can't change Romans 16.

It is the definite masculine word referring to the OFFICE.

Well putting it as kindly as possible whether masculine, feminine, or neuter, you are wrong. God does not contradict Himself! We must yield to all of Scripture, we are not allowed to pick and choose.

I would also note: Repeating yourself endlessly does not make something true. Perhaps you recall the confrontation between Elijah and the pagan priests of Baal and what happened to those pagan priests. I want it clearly understood that I do not advocate that end for those who endlessly mouth the mantra: "Masculine, Masculine, Mascu~~~~.

 

[annsni]

Now that's profound. Is there anyone who wouldn't?



Did you 'neglect' to notice Anyabwile explain that that verse is about qualifications for male deacons? The next verse is about female deacons.

I do not see how that can work. I see qualifications for bishops and deacons. I do not see qualifications for women deacons at all. I don't see how that fits the context at all. I do not believe the language or context supports verse 11 being a separate set of qualifications for women deacons. Why would verse 10 be about men, verse 11 be about women and then verse 12 be about men? That makes no sense.

Annsni, do you agree with Bronco that these pastors are blatant liberals?

No. I do not believe that but if they believe that women can be deacons as I have seen the biblical definition of deacons, then I believe them to be wrong.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well putting it as kindly as possible whether masculine, feminine, or neuter, you are wrong. God does not contradict Himself! We must yield to all of Scripture, we are not allowed to pick and choose.

Holiness, Pentecostals, and other conservatives who go by the same scriptures that you do, disagree with your interpretation.

I would also note: Repeating yourself endlessly does not make something true. Perhaps you recall the confrontation between Elijah and the pagan priests of Baal and what happened to those pagan priests. I want it clearly understood that I do not advocate that end for those who endlessly mouth the mantra: "Masculine, Masculine, Mascu~~~~.

And ignoring something endlessly does not make something false.

As long as people continue to ignore the clear truth of the quote I posted, I think it bears repeating.


P.S. Maybe someone can help: When I want to post within a quoted post, how do I make the font a different color?

 

[salzer mtn]

Luke 10:40 But Martha was cumbered about with much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, doest thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. Could it be that when Paul referred to Phebe as a servant she was nothing more than Martha that served our Lord ? Or maybe if you still think the word servant in Rom 16 refers to Phebe being a deacon then maybe Martha was playing the deacon and Christ had to rebuke her. LOL

 

[Jerome]

Could it be that when Luke referred to Stephen and Philip's serving it was nothing more than Martha's serving our Lord? Or maybe if you still think the word serving in Acts 6 refers to Stephen and Philip being deacons then maybe. . .

LOL

 

[HeirofSalvation]

ANN....O.R... Please folks:

Do you understand what is happening???

YOUR positive arguments are being IGNORED...and lying COMPLETELY unanswered...and WE are letting them get away with it.

Ann Coulter is correct.... Conservatives are so legendary for their capacity to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"....STOP engaging them until they will answer your arguments about the qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3!!!

They have insulted you, and IGNORED you. They have NEVER answered the argument from the qualifications in 1 Tim 3... They WON'T...because they don't want to, and YOU don't MAKE THEM!!!!
We may spend hours outlining a point and they simply IGNORE it...and pretend we never posted it, and then provide their own argument, and we are fool enough to engage it!!!!!

It can be demonstrated that according to Scripture... "bleu cheese" must be male...and yet...we keep yacking about "Phoebe".

DEMAND that they answer the arguments from 1 TIM 3 before you even talk to them about this non-descript personage known as "Phoebe" ok???

Stop believing that the opposition is honest, they aren't. They will pretend that you have said nothing about I Tim:3 until you FORCE them to do so!!!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I do not see how that can work. I see qualifications for bishops and deacons. I do not see qualifications for women deacons at all. I don't see how that fits the context at all. I do not believe the language or context supports verse 11 being a separate set of qualifications for women deacons. Why would verse 10 be about men, verse 11 be about women and then verse 12 be about men? That makes no sense.

They will not answer this argument...they will yack about the gender forms with "diakonos" and Phoebe.....and we will follow along

No. I do not believe that but if they believe that women can be deacons as I have seen the biblical definition of deacons, then I believe them to be wrong.

Again...they will NOT EVER rejoinder this argument, because we do not make them.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

ANN....O.R... Please folks:

Do you understand what is happening???

YOUR positive arguments are being IGNORED...and lying COMPLETELY unanswered...and WE are letting them get away with it.

Ann Coulter is correct.... Conservatives are so legendary for their capacity to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"....STOP engaging them until they will answer your arguments about the qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3!!!

They have insulted you, and IGNORED you. They have NEVER answered the argument from the qualifications in 1 Tim 3... They WON'T...because they don't want to, and YOU don't MAKE THEM!!!!
We may spend hours outlining a point and they simply IGNORE it...and pretend we never posted it, and then provide their own argument, and we are fool enough to engage it!!!!!

It can be demonstrated that according to Scripture... "bleu cheese" must be male...and yet...we keep yacking about "Phoebe".

DEMAND that they answer the arguments from 1 TIM 3 before you even talk to them about this non-descript personage known as "Phoebe" ok???

Stop believing that the opposition is honest, they aren't. They will pretend that you have said nothing about I Tim:3 until you FORCE them to do so!!!

Your post is an insult and a personal attack. No one is lying here.... except you, being the initiator of this junk!

And just look at the attempts to ignore or rationalize away the quotes I posted.

If this is your MO, then I have absolutely no respect for you. You cheapen yourself and your position by posting in this manner.

 

[Jerome]

From the Founders website, W. B. Johnson writing in 1846 (Johnson was the first President of the Southern Baptist Convention):

And, therefore it is, that the deaconship admits of females into its number. Phebe was a diaconos, deaconess, or female servant of the church at Cenchrea, a succorer of many, even of the apostle himself. These brethren would have stated meetings, confer upon the temporal matters of the church, and make report of their doings to the flock. What a blessing would such a deaconship be to a church? He who instituted the office has gifts to fill it. Let the church earnestly beseech Him to give them such, if they have them not, and He will be heard of them.

http://www.founders.org/library/polity/johnson.htm

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Your post is an insult and a personal attack. No one is lying here.... except you, being the initiator of this junk!

No one said you were "lying" I said the arguments we posted were...and I quote:

lying COMPLETELY unanswered

As in: to remain...it's a conjugation of the verb "to lay" or to "subsist in present form"... Read the post again before you falsely accuse brethren please....I cannot invent a new gramatically accurate spelling of the verb "to lay" or "lying" in a sufficient manner to allay your fears.
I was conjugating a verb. It's a real verb...it exists in the English language.
I DON'T fall for the BS...most people do...I don't.

No one called you a "liar"....you are therefore either:
1.) ignorant and incapable of appropriately understanding what you read in context
or
2.) intentionally mis-representing me and what I said

which is it?
Are you:
Dishonest? or merely Ignorant?

And just look at the attempts to ignore or rationalize away the quotes I posted.

Which ones were ignored? I was objecting to quotes and posts...(interestingly to Ann and OR) that I thought ignored...but not yours...please cite which particular arguments of yours are "ignored".

If this is your MO, then I have absolutely no respect for you.

Don't think for a second that I am stupid enough to believe that you EVER had "respect" for me or my position...regardless of what my "MO" was...I'm no idiot. It wasn't my "MO" (you misread my MO, as I have just demonstrated)...But I am not so blind as to think that it was even ontologically possible that you would in the first place. I know where I stand.
You did not have respect for either me, or my particular arguments as posed in this thread from moment one....don't insult my intelligence by suggesting (by your failure to appropriately conjugate verbs)...that you just "lost" some form of previously possessed "respect" for anyone.

You cheapen yourself and your position by posting in this manner.

Which manner exactly???? In what way were you insulted? and what was cheap" I insist that you answer. Make your accusations specific and public as to what was inappropriate???

You are skirting the issue yet again, with yet one more tactic....You simply are being indignant...
NOTHING DOING:
Answer the argument about the Biblically CLEAR qualifications as out-lined in 1 TIM 3.....this clap-trap tactic works on most people on BB... it doesn't work on me.

ANSWER THE ARGUMENT....The (I Tim 3 argument) you're avoiding it by being womanishly indignant about your inability to conjugate verbs...again...not working.

 

[Jerome]

And for our Puritan and Catechism enthusiasts:

Puritan divine Thomas Goodwin's Church Order Explained in a Way of Catechism:

Rom. xvi. 1, it is translated servants, but the word is deacons. There was a church at Cenchrea, an haven by Corinth, and Phebe was a deacon there; and the servant of the church implies the thing: for a woman may not teach nor rule in the church, and therefore she must be a deaconess; and the apostle giveth her this testimony, that she had been a succourer of him and of others also. Now this succouring is to those that are cast down by sickness or sores, to look to them, and to provide them tables; and none are so fit for this, as skilful, pitiful, and compassionate widows; they are fit to minister succour to poor brethren, to them that have none of their own kindred to provide for them and relieve them. Such are to be taken into the number of the deacons. This was the practice of the primitive church long after the apostles' times.

 

[annsni]

From the Founders website, W. B. Johnson writing in 1846 (Johnson was the first President of the Southern Baptist Convention):



http://www.founders.org/library/polity/johnson.htm

Why did you only post the "and therefore....." rather than the whole of the quote?

To one, the keeping of the money, and the specialties of the church, might be committed. A second might keep the records of the church. A third might exercise a supervision over the meeting house and its arrangements, that all things may be kept in a decent and orderly manner, attracting hearers to the sanctuary of God. A fourth might be employed in attending to the poor, seeking them out, relieving their wants, and giving them good counsel. In these two last departments, deaconesses would be particularly useful. In visiting the female poor, and in attending to the interior of the meeting house, their services would be exceedingly valuable. And, therefore it is, that the deaconship admits of females into its number. Phebe was a diaconos, deaconess, or female servant of the church at Cenchrea, a succorer of many, even of the apostle himself. These brethren would have stated meetings, confer upon the temporal matters of the church, and make report of their doings to the flock. What a blessing would such a deaconship be to a church? He who instituted the office has gifts to fill it. Let the church earnestly beseech Him to give them such, if they have them not, and He will be heard of them. I mean not, by what I have said above, to fix the number or specific employment of the deacons. Each church must use her own discretion in relation to both.

So, attending to the meeting house (taking care of the church facilities - like cleaning bathrooms and vacuuming??) and visiting the poor are the two things that women would be particularly good at - so have women deacons.

Yes, I agree that women would be great at these two things but since a deacon is a husband, I'd say that these women can do the same jobs - without the official title of deacon.

I find it interesting that Mark Dever would call me a deacon because I'm in charge of a particular ministry in our church - yet I do not wish to have that title. It doesn't mean that I am any less of a servant - nor do I feel that I am overlooked. Am I not important because I'm not a deacon?

 

[annsni]

And for our Puritan and Catechism enthusiasts:

Puritan divine Thomas Goodwin's Church Order Explained in a Way of Catechism:

The word is not "deacon" but daikonos. There is a difference. If the term is "deacon" then we must retranslate the Scriptures.

Matthew 4:11 "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and deaconed unto him."

Matthew 8:15 "And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and deaconed unto them."

Luke 4:39 "And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and deaconed unto them."

Romans 15:25 "But now I go unto Jerusalem to deacon unto the saints."

Philemon 1:13 "Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have deaconed unto me in the bonds of the gospel:"

2 Corinthians 8:19 "And not [that] only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is deaconed by us to the glory of the same Lord, and [declaration of] your ready mind:"

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No one said you were "lying" I said the arguments we posted were...and I quote:
As in: to remain...it's a conjugation of the verb "to lay" or to "subsist in present form"... Read the post again before you falsely accuse brethren please....I cannot invent a new gramatically accurate spelling of the verb "to lay" or "lying" in a sufficient manner to allay your fears.
I was conjugating a verb. It's a real verb...it exists in the English language.
I DON'T fall for the BS...most people do...I don't.

No one called you a "liar"....you are therefore either:
1.) ignorant and incapable of appropriately understanding what you read in context
or
2.) intentionally mis-representing me and what I said

which is it?
Are you:
Dishonest? or merely Ignorant?


Which ones were ignored? I was objecting to quotes and posts...(interestingly to Ann and OR) that I thought ignored...but not yours...please cite which particular arguments of yours are "ignored".

Don't think for a second that I am stupid enough to believe that you EVER had "respect" for me or my position...regardless of what my "MO" was...I'm no idiot. It wasn't my "MO" (you misread my MO, as I have just demonstrated)...But I am not so blind as to think that it was even ontologically possible that you would in the first place. I know where I stand.
You did not have respect for either me, or my particular arguments as posed in this thread from moment one....don't insult my intelligence by suggesting (by your failure to appropriately conjugate verbs)...that you just "lost" some form of previously possessed "respect" for anyone.

Which manner exactly???? In what way were you insulted? and what was cheap" I insist that you answer. Make your accusations specific and public as to what was inappropriate???

You are skirting the issue yet again, with yet one more tactic....You simply are being indignant...
NOTHING DOING:
Answer the argument about the Biblically CLEAR qualifications as out-lined in 1 TIM 3.....this clap-trap tactic works on most people on BB... it doesn't work on me.

ANSWER THE ARGUMENT....The (I Tim 3 argument) you're avoiding it by being womanishly indignant about your inability to conjugate verbs...again...not working.

Okay, I read too quickly through your post, as my attention was being diverted elsewhere. I went back and reread it, and I was wrong, about the lying part, anyway.

But the rest of your post confirms my opinion of you, apart from anything else. You are a total jerk and an unmannerly slob. If I were face-to-face with you, I bet you wouldn't say there what you have said to me here.

You are lying about me, though. I have clearly responded with respect to those I disagree with here, such as Bronc, and others. I respect those who differ with me, and their opinions, when they are respectful in our exchanges. You are not respectful, and that very fact shows your lack of intelligence. And to answer your charge that I am ignorant and your chiding about my not being able to understand grammar, I'll inform you that I have a doctorate in humanities with concentrations in English language and literature and church history. So, before you make ignorant, uninformed, and insulting assumptions and accusations, I suggest you equip yourself with more education and logic if you expect to be able to hold an informed conversation with me.

Now, is that specific and public enough for you? I insist that you answer.

I was right about your MO. You have proven that.

My general rule is not to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Well putting it as kindly as possible whether masculine, feminine, or neuter, you are wrong. God does not contradict Himself! We must yield to all of Scripture, we are not allowed to pick and choose.

Holiness, Pentecostals, and other conservatives who go by the same scriptures that you do, disagree with your interpretation.

I would also note: Repeating yourself endlessly does not make something true. Perhaps you recall the confrontation between Elijah and the pagan priests of Baal and what happened to those pagan priests. I want it clearly understood that I do not advocate that end for those who endlessly mouth the mantra: "Masculine, Masculine, Mascu~~~~.

And ignoring something endlessly does not make something false.

As long as people continue to ignore the clear truth of the quote I posted, I think it bears repeating.


P.S. Maybe someone can help: When I want to post within a quoted post, how do I make the font a different color?

I am glad you mentioned that. What you have done is dishonest to say the least because it implies I said something I did not. And you with a Doctors degree!

It is really very simple. The following is how a proper response would look!

*******************************************************************

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Well putting it as kindly as possible whether masculine, feminine, or neuter, you are wrong. God does not contradict Himself! We must yield to all of Scripture, we are not allowed to pick and choose.

Holiness, Pentecostals, and other conservatives who go by the same scriptures that you do, disagree with your interpretation.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
I would also note: Repeating yourself endlessly does not make something true. Perhaps you recall the confrontation between Elijah and the pagan priests of Baal and what happened to those pagan priests. I want it clearly understood that I do not advocate that end for those who endlessly mouth the mantra: "Masculine, Masculine, Mascu~~~~.

And ignoring something endlessly does not make something false.

As long as people continue to ignore the clear truth of the quote I posted, I think it bears repeating.

 

[saturneptune]

Your post is an insult and a personal attack. No one is lying here.... except you, being the initiator of this junk!

And just look at the attempts to ignore or rationalize away the quotes I posted.

If this is your MO, then I have absolutely no respect for you. You cheapen yourself and your position by posting in this manner.

This is my first post here. I do not know where you got your degree, but you appear to argue for the sake of argument. This is a clear cut issue, and you are on the wrong side. You have not listened to Ann, Old Regular, Hier or any of the others that give you clear Biblical principles on the matter. Lots of things in Scripture can be debated, but not this.

The miracle of the Baptist faith is that it exists at all with arguments like this one. Do you ever debate someone that the sky is blue?

If Scripture leaves open a difference of opinion, then it is worthy of debate. This is not.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am glad you mentioned that. What you have done is dishonest to say the least because it implies I said something I did not. And you with a Doctors degree!

It is really very simple. The following is how a proper response would look!

*******************************************************************

I don't know what you're talking about. And I resent your insult.