Women pastors

[AustinC]

I Tim 2:12

Already addressed by me and you haven't shown how the greek is universal for all time, when in fact the tense gives allowance to be "I do not, presently, at this time, permit woman to teach." The problem with English is that it is not an exact language while greek is more specific. You have ignored this, even though I have presented it more than once.
Honestly, your response seems quite Pharisaic.

 

[Aaron]

I think there are in fact important contexts in which Paul was writing. Of course he was influenced by the OT, but was he not also influenced by the Hellenistic world in which he was writing? The NT is clearly the convergence of the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds. Even the person to whom Paul was corresponding (Timothy) was himself a sort of image of this, as Timothy was the son of Greek gentile father and Greek-speaking Jewish mother.

The other context I think is missing is the stage of Christianity at this point in history.

Do these things not play any role in our understanding the text?

Do you believe in the Spirit?

 

[Aaron]

Already addressed by me...

Yes, but not honestly.

 

[Duckie]

Already addressed by me and you haven't shown how the greek is universal for all time, when in fact the tense gives allowance to be "I do not, presently, at this time, permit woman to teach." The problem with English is that it is not an exact language while greek is more specific. You have ignored this, even though I have presented it more than once.
Honestly, your response seems quite Pharisaic.

"Presently"

I am presently looking at all of the translations of 1 Timothy 2:12, and, I see no "presently"

What Does 1 Timothy 2:12 Mean? "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness."

 

[Reynolds]

Already addressed by me and you haven't shown how the greek is universal for all time, when in fact the tense gives allowance to be "I do not, presently, at this time, permit woman to teach." The problem with English is that it is not an exact language while greek is more specific. You have ignored this, even though I have presented it more than once.
Honestly, your response seems quite Pharisaic.

I have you the link where MacArthur lays the case for Universality. No point in trying to re type what he so thoroughly dealt with.

 

[ntchristian]

No your comment wasn't. It is a typical liberal non-argument similar to when people cite Leviticus to show that sodomy is a sin, and someone like you will say "do you wear a mixed garment, or eat shellfish?" It is a blatant misrepresentation of the word so as to try and win an argument.

What a lie, typical of "someone like you". You don't know anything about me; thus, your statement is highly presumptuous. It is a deflection and misrepresentation to fall back on the lie that those who favor women pastors are liberals. Some are, but as I have already referenced, Pentecostals accept women pastors, and they are as conservative or more so than fundamentalist Baptists and evangelicals.

Furthermore, don't presume my position on homosexuality or gay marriage. You did not know it when you wrote your trash.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

What a lie, typical of "someone like you". You don't know anything about me; thus, your statement is highly presumptuous. It is a deflection and misrepresentation to fall back on the lie that those who favor women pastors are liberals. Some are, but as I have already referenced, Pentecostals accept women pastors, and they are as conservative or more so than fundamentalist Baptists and evangelicals.

Furthermore, don't presume my position on homosexuality or gay marriage. You did not know it when you wrote your trash.

I said "similar," there is a difference bud. And yes, your's is an argument becoming of a liberal point of view, which doesn't actually deal honestly with the scripture, it simply uses "proof texts" in a lazy way - like what you did. Thankfully Scarlett corrected your strawman.

 

[ntchristian]

I said "similar," there is a difference bud. And yes, your's is an argument becoming of a liberal point of view, which doesn't actually deal honestly with the scripture, it simply uses "proof texts" in a lazy way - like what you did. Thankfully Scarlett corrected your strawman.

What I posted is legitimate, even if you can't comprehend it, or mis-characterize it. And I'd like to see you confront a Pentecostal with a phony charge of liberalism. Laughable.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

What I posted is legitimate, even if you can't comprehend it, or mis-characterize it. And I'd like to see you confront a Pentecostal with a phony charge of liberalism. Laughable.

LOL, I did comprehend it, it was just a terrible argument that I have seen a million times. Why do you keep bringing up pentecostals? Is that supposed to give credence to your stance?

 

[ntchristian]

LOL, I did comprehend it, it was just a terrible argument that I have seen a million times. Why do you keep bringing up pentecostals? Is that supposed to give credence to your stance?

Comprehension problems again? I bring up Pentecostals as proof that the issue is not a conservative vs liberal one, an argument I have seen a million times.

But I do not wish to fight, and I hold no ill will toward you.

 

[AustinC]

I have you the link where MacArthur lays the case for Universality. No point in trying to re type what he so thoroughly dealt with.

It seems you place Mac in a god like status on your mantle. Do you realize that Mac's dispensationalism is wrong? He is only human and he does not address the greek structure in 1 Timothy to acknowledge that English translations fail to clarify Paul's point.

Second, you still seem to ignore my position that men should, but women can.
Truth is there are many, many God gifted women from which you can learn the truths of God. They can teach you. Yet, God has given men a role of shepherding and protecting the body. Elders guide the flock with gentleness, mercy, and grace. If they fail to do this, they should be removed from office. If men in a congregation cannot learn from women, then those men are prideful and arrogant in their spirit. You never see Jesus degrading women or refusing to truly listen to them. In fact, it is obvious that his mom was instrumental in his human growth as a man.

 

[AustinC]

"Presently"

I am presently looking at all of the translations of 1 Timothy 2:12, and, I see no "presently"

What Does 1 Timothy 2:12 Mean? "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness."

Again, men should, but women can.
How to Use a "For" Clause: 1 Timothy 2:12 and Egalitarianism » Things Above Us

 

[Reynolds]

It seems you place Mac in a god like status on your mantle. Do you realize that Mac's dispensationalism is wrong? He is only human and he does not address the greek structure in 1 Timothy to acknowledge that English translations fail to clarify Paul's point.

Second, you still seem to ignore my position that men should, but women can.
Truth is there are many, many God gifted women from which you can learn the truths of God. They can teach you. Yet, God has given men a role of shepherding and protecting the body. Elders guide the flock with gentleness, mercy, and grace. If they fail to do this, they should be removed from office. If men in a congregation cannot learn from women, then those men are prideful and arrogant in their spirit. You never see Jesus degrading women or refusing to truly listen to them. In fact, it is obvious that his mom was instrumental in his human growth as a man.

Scripture plainly says women can not. I place no faith in Mac, but he did build a Scriptural case I have not heard you refute.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Comprehension problems again? I bring up Pentecostals as proof that the issue is not a conservative vs liberal one, an argument I have seen a million times.

But I do not wish to fight, and I hold no ill will toward you.

Comprehension problems? Didn't I have to clarify that I said "similar" after your big ole' rant? Nor did I say typical of someone like you, nor did I say I presumed your position on sodomy. Nice try though .

A very large portion of Pentecostals are wrong on many things - many of them primary issues in regards to salvation. Your citing them also isn't an argument in favor of your position that women are eligible for the office of pastor.

 

[Campion]

Do you believe in the Spirit?

Yes.

 

[ntchristian]

Comprehension problems? Didn't I have to clarify that I said "similar" after your big ole' rant? Nor did I say typical of someone like you, nor did I say I presumed your position on sodomy. Nice try though .

A very large portion of Pentecostals are wrong on many things - many of them primary issues in regards to salvation. Your citing them also isn't an argument in favor of your position that women are eligible for the office of pastor.

Your words: "It is a typical liberal non-argument..." and 'someone like you will say "do you wear a mixed garment, or eat shellfish?" '

I'll re-post what I originally wrote about Pentecostals and Baptists on this issue, since it seems necessary: "I wonder how Baptists feel about Pentecostals allowing women pastors/preachers. How do you know you are right and they are wrong? Baptists would probably say Pentecostals are wrong on this and spirit baptism/spiritual gifts -- in other words, that error accompanies error. But Pentecostals would say Baptists are also wrong on eternal security. So, how would an objective observer/seeker determine who is wrong on women pastors?"

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Your words: "It is a typical liberal non-argument..." and 'someone like you will say "do you wear a mixed garment, or eat shellfish?" '

I'll re-post what I originally wrote about Pentecostals and Baptists on this issue, since it seems necessary: "I wonder how Baptists feel about Pentecostals allowing women pastors/preachers. How do you know you are right and they are wrong? Baptists would probably say Pentecostals are wrong on this and spirit baptism/spiritual gifts -- in other words, that error accompanies error. But Pentecostals would say Baptists are also wrong on eternal security. So, how would an objective observer/seeker determine who is wrong on women pastors?"

Yes, my words. Where did I say you are a liberal, or that you affirm sodomy? Are you capable of pointing me to that, or just misrepresenting what I said? "someone like you" Someone who uses the same style of argumentation.

So Pentecostals affirming women pastors proves your point that women can be pastors, as per the title of the thread? Gotcha, so MacArthur isn't your authority, but what Pentecostals do is. Outstanding! . My authority, like I said initially, is the word of God, not Pentecostals, MacArthur, or feelings.

 

[ntchristian]

Yes, my words. Where did I say you are a liberal, or that you affirm sodomy? Are you capable of pointing me to that, or just misrepresenting what I said? "someone like you" Someone who uses the same style of argumentation.

Pentecostals affirming women pastors proves your point that women can be pastors, as per the title of the thread? Gotcha, so MacArthur isn't your authority, but what Pentecostals do is. Outstanding! . My authority, like I said initially, is the word of God, not Pentecostals, MacArthur, or feelings.

Well, it's worse than I thought. Not only can you not comprehend what I'm saying, you cannot even comprehend what you're saying! And in your second paragraph, you twist my position. You are one confused individual.

My authority on this issue, as well as any others, is what I have been maintaining: the scriptures, interpreted in context.

I'll ask again: How is an objective seeker, looking at the opposite positions of conservative Christians -- whether Baptists, Pentecostals, or others -- to determine the truth on this matter? Both sides are certain that the other is in error, and they base that on their scriptural interpretations. This same question could be asked of any other doctrinal disagreements. To me, any interpretation that does not take context into account must be suspect. I have found that when context is considered, interpretations, including those of related or connected issues, is much more consistent and likely to be true. I have not found opponents of women pastors to be consistent in their interpretation of related/connected issues or the practice thereof. Therefore, it renders their interpretation of the main issue questionable, to say the least.

 

[ntchristian]

For those here who are opposed to women pastors and who base your opposition on what Paul wrote: If you do not make your women wear a head covering, then you are choosing to follow Paul only in what you agree with. You are accepting his teachings in part. You are choosing what you agree with and discarding what you don't. That is no different from what conservatives charge liberals with doing.

I look for consistency in interpretation, and context. I don't see that with many conservative Baptists on this issue.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Well, it's worse than I thought. Not only can you not comprehend what I'm saying, you cannot even comprehend what you're saying! And in your second paragraph, you twist my position. You are one confused individual.

My authority on this issue, as well as any others, is what I have been maintaining: the scriptures, interpreted in context.

I'll ask again: How is an objective seeker, looking at the opposite positions of conservative Christians -- whether Baptists, Pentecostals, or others -- to determine the truth on this matter? Both sides are certain that the other is in error, and they base that on their scriptural interpretations. This same question could be asked of any other doctrinal disagreements. To me, any interpretation that does not take context into account must be suspect. I have found that when context is considered, interpretations, including those of related or connected issues, is much more consistent and likely to be true. I have not found opponents of women pastors to be consistent in their interpretation of related/connected issues or the practice thereof. Therefore, it renders their interpretation of the main issue questionable, to say the least.

Yes your misuse of Galatians 3:28, and the Corinthians references speak volumes of your passion for context. As to your fixation on the baptist vs. pentecostal thing, I suggest you start a new thread, as this is in no way relevant to your thread, nor does it in any way help your position. If one wants to know the truth, they'd be better served looking to the scripture for guidance, not denominations. Try and stay on topic.