Women Pastors?

TBN is about the best example of bad teachers you can get!

First of all, it's Joyce Meyer (not Meyers).

Secondly, J Meyer is Word of Faith and many of her teachings are not according to the Bible.

Teachers/Preachers too many to count on TBN are either Word Faith or Oneness, and are not teaching the Bible to begin with. The fact they have women teaching these doctrines only compounds the error - doesn't make it okay for women to teach doctrine to men.

 

Except my opinion is backed up by the teachings and ministryu of Jesus Christ. To me, that makes a great deal of difference. How about to you?

 

Poor Jim! You must feel like this guy: :BangHead:

yet in Romans we have this same Paul identifying a deaconess named Phebe...Now she is not the husband of one wife......problem between the two passages..........
-----------------------------------------------

Isn't there the office of deacon and then there is being a deacon in the sense of being a servant?

Also, my understanding is that deacons in the biblical meaning of the world do not have authority but are servants and minister to the flock. A deacon/servant does not lead doctrinal affairs. Phoebe could have ministered to other women.

However, some churches use deacons as elders (like my church, so we don't have women deacons), which gives them authority. I think this is where the confusion arises.

I listened to ya, Jim! Do you feel better? I hope so! :wavey:

 

Jesus may have broken "cultural mandates" but he did not break biblical ones. Scripture is clear on this issue - I've had to examine it as I've been challenged on it quite a bit. The pro-woman pastor arguments just don't hold up, as has been shown on this thread. Also, I used to be a feminist in my "other" life before Christ, and I had to settle this issue in my mind for my own self and own peace of mind.

 

Thank you, Marcia..I am glad that some women in here finally obeyed a senior MAN........:laugh: just kidding.

I still don't understand why people of to-day don't get it, when such brilliant theologians and language experts as the late F.F. Bruce, and even the Plymouth Brethren, understand those scriptures the same as do I.

I quote F.F. Bruce:

"Whether they are called deaconesses or not is a small matter; but that women as well as men might serve as deacons in apostolic churches is plain from 1 Tim3: 8-12, where the "women" of verse 11 appear to be women who performed service of this kind, rather than deacon's wives. Phoebe was a deacon (diakonos) of the church (Rom 16:1). F.F. Bruce, of the most paternalistic assembly on earth, the Plymouth Brethren, accepted that female deacons (without delineating duties) in the local church.

Strange to me. All my life I went along with the notion of no female deacons or preachers..I still hesitate in the pulpit..any female in the pulpit for any reason including singing.....

Cheers,

Jim

 

:laugh: :laugh:

But doesn't he mean a deaconess in the sense of being a servant? When Baptist churches use deacons as elders, that is why they don't have women "deacons."

If deacons were really just servants -- visiting the sick, welcoming new members with a nice lunch, visting shut-ins, etc., then there is no problem with a woman deacon.

But if deacons are being used as elders, as they are in my church and in a lot of others, then there cannot be women deacons because they are really functioning as elders, though using the label "deacon."

 

Even more dramatic was going from being pro-choice to pro-life! It took about a year for me to process that and realize the scriptural validation of it. Of course, I didn't know the Bible well, so that is part of it.

It was difficult to lose my friends at that stage of life -- (we had little in common after I was saved, and then I moved), and it was "strange" to me to all of a sudden be "on the other side" of things. But I did not change overnight. The Lord is very gracious and patient and fortunately, I was not initially around conservative Christians who might have tried to push me. No offense to conservative Christians (as I am one in the theological sense especially), but we need to let the HS work in new believers, especially when they are saved as adults or have had a really dramatic change in lifestyle.

 

Marcia, I am not sure what all the duties of deacons were or are....elders, in my mind, is just another title for pastors..at least that is what was always taught in Baptist schools of old (my era).

Now, in Acts 7 we have Stephen ordained (laying on of hands) a deacon..........it does instantly talk about serving....agreed........but later in verses 9ff we have the Jews up in arms for what Stephen had been preaching...."and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he (Stephen) spake..." vs 10..if verses 7:2ff...ain't preaching, I have never entered a pulpit in all my years........What Stephen preached sure didn't sound like waiting on tables!!!!

Pheoebe, Phebe or phoebe,,whichever spelling one uses..was a deacon....period!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, hope you don't think I'm being rude, but even if Stephen was a deacon and he preached, that does not mean that deacons necessarily preach. He just happened to do it to defend the gospel when he was challenged and brought before the council at the end of Acts 6.

Also, Acts 6 says Stephen, along with other men, had hands laid on them, but it does not say they were deacons, at least in Acts 6.

So I don't think we can say Stephen and Phoebe had equal roles in the church.

 

I almost didn't answer this, but I thought I'd try to interact with you one more time. So far you would rather lecture me that interact with me. You accuse me of having a late 19th century mindset, but then ignored me when I quoted Carson back to you. Then when I ask you for examples of NT or historical usage you give me a flawed example (misread by you--seems like you would be a little more humble about that) and then never interact with me on it.

What I have been trying to do is from right up here in modern times. Meaning is proven by usage and I have been asking you for a clear usage of ektithemi where it means "to teach." Re-read Carson's Ch. 1 or Ch. 5 in Nida's Toward a Science of Translating. Then get back with me, leave out the insults, and give me a single historical usage--just one--to prove ektithemi can mean "to teach." Then I'll be ready to listen to you. (Frankly, your amateur opinion as to meaning un-backed by lexical or contextual evidence isn't enough for me.) :type:

 

PROVE IT! Give me one verse where Jesus commended a female preacher. Give me one verse where he ordained a female apostle. You know your wrong. You know the Word of God will not back up your belief.

 

John,

Yes you are right on the LXX thing - sorry. I glanced over to see how Brenton translated it and looked at the line above it. But that doesn't really change the point. Something was being "set forth" or declared for someone else. I never asserted that this word is synonymous with didasko, which is indeed much more common - but rather that the semantic context was still that of one party explaining (so BDAG) or putting something forth to another party. The fact that didasko is not used doesn't mean that one person is not instructing another which is clearly the context in Acts 18.

As far as Carson - if you got anything about aorist meaning "once and for all" from him then you misread him. The reading in Acts 18 is simply narrative - not once and for all, in the past with present relevance or anything like that - it's just pure simple narrative.

And sadly I must say that it is you who has done the insulting.

You misread the Greek, if indeed you can even read it.

Frankly, your amateur opinion as to meaning un-backed by lexical or contextual evidence isn't enough for me.

I have not imputed bad faith to you - I just said that your statement takes too much liberty with the text - which it does.

 

Then I guess you really didn't read my comments on Carson's quote.

Tell me where I have insulted you and I'll apologize. You yourself said you are an amateur, right? And you did mis-read the Greek, right? And that surely allows me to doubt your abilities until you explain it. But you really think you haven't insulted me by calling my honest opinion of the text something premeditated to serve my own purposes, and something "very dangerous"? That is insulting, sir.

Yes, you certainly did impute bad faith to me, and to be honest I was offended. I promised God long ago that I would let His Word change me rather than seeking to read into it my own beliefs. You accused me of not approaching the text honestly.

 

F.F. Bruce,,liberal? New to me......

I am making assumptions? If one verse interrupts ten other verses, the ultimate meaning must be considered...It only takes one verse to alter a doctrine. Or, live with a contradiction.

Cheers,

Jim

 

John,

But you really think you haven't insulted me by calling my honest opinion of the text something premeditated to serve my own purposes, and something "very dangerous"? That is insulting, sir.

I wasn't intending to say that you intentionally approached the text intending to twist it. I apologize if I offended you. Perhaps I should not have been so presumptious.

Yes I am an amateur - that's for sure. But I have put an enormous amount of time into reading of my pet languages. And when it comes to linguistics I am a minimalist. I think that in general the bones of language carry alot less specific information than we tend to think - my opinion. It seems to me that a great deal of Christian commentary writing (by brilliant men no doubt) coming out of the late 19th century was filled with the idea that nuances in the Greek text carried very important and specific information that the reader who only knows English will miss. The "once and for all aorist" is just one of these concepts. In addition many comparisons were made regarding different words - such that the use of - say - oida and ginosko - implied something different in every case since a different word was being used. I think this is simply colloquy in many cases - with the context supplying the weight of the semantic distinction. I do concede that this above scheme was/is the opinion of many men more skilled in Greek than I - but in my opinion the disagreement is important since over-definite Greek misreadings (even well-meant) can be worse than no-Greek readings.

In any event our discussion has not set out on the best foot. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I am sorry if I offended you in any way. :wavey:

 

In any event, regardless of language, context, context, context, local familiarity, understanding people involved all enter into the picture of understanding.

Some men have come out with better understanding in plain English. In my early days, we didn't have all the translations available and we had to resort to our seminary Greek and Hebrew. To-day, one does not need the languages. Just use all the translations; it works.

Cheers,

Jim