WOMEN PREACHERS

[Scott J]

Originally posted by saturneptune:

Scott,
You dont have a clue about canon history or historical data for the Scripture.

Ummm, Care to back that up somehow?

I don't have a clue? Where did that come from and moreover... Why would you say it... to what end?

 

[Ron Arndt]

Tell me how the bishop can be the HUSBAND of one WIFE, if the bishop in your church is a woman? Please answer the question.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by SuperBaptist:
Men are still power-hungry and refuse to share any of it with women.

True. Many so much so that instead of simply submitting to what God says, they determine to submit God to their tests of fairness. God established the order for men and women.

The humble accept it... the power-hungry dispute with God over it.

That's why so many are here fighting for their right to continue their bigotry and repression.

No bigotry... not repression. Just obedience.

Even some women have learned to hate themselves to satisfy their men.

Hate themselves? What an incredibly pompous, arrogant assumption.

Care to show some proof that they hate themselves or are unhappy living in accordance with God's Word?

My wife is neither oppressed nor the victim of "bigotry". She is biblically submitted. We have a great relationship that is the envy of people who know us that think more like you. Funny, God's ways aren't man's ways...

Universally, I find that the closer men live to the biblical servant-leader role and women live to the biblically submissive role... the more content and satisfied they are both as individuals and couples.

OTOH, the more women try to behave like men, usurp authority, and rebel against God's order... the more miserable they are.

Likewise, men who rebel against and reject their biblical role, responsibilities, command to love, and manner of leadership are alternately hen-pecked cowards or abusive ogres.

A survey just came out by Pew that basically reflects the more someone leans toward conservatism and values traditions... the happier they are... Interesting how God's Word predicted this would be the case. All Pew would have had to do is read the Book.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ron Arndt:
Tell me how the bishop can be the HUSBAND of one WIFE, if the bishop in your church is a woman? Please answer the question.

I am even more interested how a pastor can do that job without teaching or usurping authority over men.

Basically, this person calling themselves a superbaptist rejects the authority of Paul's writings... claiming he is a "red letter" Christian. But he won't find authority for women being leaders over men in Christ's words either... so he claims to meditate and base his beliefs on what some spirit is telling him. Never mind that this spirit is telling him things contrary to scripture.

The one thing he proves is that the Baptist label is all but meaningless since those with very un-baptistic beliefs find it a convenient monicker... and can freely use it.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Originally posted by Scott J:

.. the Baptist label is all but meaningless since those with very un-baptistic beliefs find it a convenient moniker... and can freely use it.

As sad as that is, the Baptist denomination overall has very stubbornly held its biblical ground, compared with any other denomination I am aware of, even though it is fast losing ground.

Wherever I go, at least in the South, the best, and sometimes ONLY chance of finding a biblical based church is to look for a Baptist church, usually a smaller one.

It may not last much longer but, for now, the overall Baptist connotation is still intact, I believe.

 

[Salamander]

Yes, the Baptist ChurcH may not be found much longer, right after the rapture only professing baptists will be around and they will eventually cave in to the pressure to remove "Baptist" from their name.

 

[Scott J]

I would say that Baptists held ground so long as it was less a denomination and more a set of biblical principles/distinctives.

I don't mind people like superbaptist on one extreme or Fred Phelps on the other believing whatever they want to believe... but it sickens me that they do so under the banner of a set of ideals that contradicts both of them. Neither of them express hold to baptistic beliefs but both bring dishonor to the label by claiming it publicly.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Yes, the Baptist ChurcH may not be found much longer, right after the rapture only professing baptists will be around and they will eventually cave in to the pressure to remove "Baptist" from their name.

I would actually suspect they'll continue right on being "Baptist" but not baptistic after the rapture.

Many churches who are dropping the label now are doing so not because of pressure... but for the very reason I cite. When virtually any beliefs, practices, or doctrines can be called "Baptist", why would you want to continue to be associated with them?

I am a Bible-believing child of God. Baptist is just a label. Convenient short hand for what I believe. So when the label no longer indicates those beliefs... I am more than willing to operate under another banner.

 

[Salamander]

But that is exactly why we all should stick to what we know instead of what we presume.

 

[MRCoon]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Yes, the Baptist ChurcH may not be found much longer, right after the rapture only professing baptists will be around and they will eventually cave in to the pressure to remove "Baptist" from their name.

Ouch!! and oh so funny

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Originally posted by Scott J:

I would say that Baptists held ground so long as it was less a denomination and more a set of biblical principles/distinctives.

I think that's right on. I just wrote about that in another thread here:

Baptist Name Being Obscured

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:
But that is exactly why we all should stick to what we know instead of what we presume.

Can you explain this comment? I am not following you.

 

[william s. correa]

Eve was the first preacher!

 

[BroShane]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
Eve was the first preacher!

Would you mind giving a little clarification of that statement? I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say, and the basis for it.

Thanks

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
When virtually any beliefs, practices, or doctrines can be called "Baptist", why would you want to continue to be associated with them?

What defines a Baptist is the Baptist distinctives. Yet, there are many who have "added" additional requirements to what is required to be baptist. If a church adheres to the Distinctives, they're Baptist, whether they have the label on the shingle or not.

As for the issue of women preachers, it's not a topic in the Distinctives, so to claim a church with a female pastor cannot Baptist is an incorrect claim. Liberal, perhaps. Baptist, no.

Now, on the area of female preachers, there is no scripture that forbids a woman from preaching. There are scriptures which can be interpreted to forbid women from pastoring. But preching and pastoring are two different things.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
When virtually any beliefs, practices, or doctrines can be called "Baptist", why would you want to continue to be associated with them?

What defines a Baptist is the Baptist distinctives. Yet, there are many who have "added" additional requirements to what is required to be baptist. If a church adheres to the Distinctives, they're Baptist, whether they have the label on the shingle or not.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. But you can't deny most or all of them and still be accurately called baptistic.

As for the issue of women preachers, it's not a topic in the Distinctives, so to claim a church with a female pastor cannot Baptist is an incorrect claim. Liberal, perhaps. Baptist, no.

Yes and no. If it is an argument about what the Bible says concerning the subject then you can make this case. But if it is a denial that scripture is the authority for what we should believe about the subject- then no, one ceases to be "baptistic" when they reject scriptural authority.

Now, on the area of female preachers, there is no scripture that forbids a woman from preaching. There are scriptures which can be interpreted to forbid women from pastoring. But preching and pastoring are two different things.

That's true with one additional exception. Women are forbidden from teaching men. The context seems to indicate "in public" rather than private witnessing (aka preaching) or discipleship.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Yes. But you can't deny most or all of them and still be accurately called baptistic.

IMO, you can't deny any of them and be called such.

That's true with one additional exception. Women are forbidden from teaching men. The context seems to indicate "in public" rather than private witnessing (aka preaching) or discipleship.

Suffice it to say there's much debate over the overall context. No need to rehash the whole debate again. As far as being Baptist in regards to the verse, debating the interpretation of the verse is, imo, permissible, and does not "deny" scripture. IOW, I think the issue for Baptist churches fall under the Distinctive of local autonomy on such matters. If a local church interprets scripture to permit women in roles fo authority, then it doesn't mean they're not baptist. Again, they may be liberal in this specific area, but still baptist.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Yes. But you can't deny most or all of them and still be accurately called baptistic.

IMO, you can't deny any of them and be called such.</font>[/QUOTE] I was trying to be a "kinder, gentler ScottJ".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That's true with one additional exception. Women are forbidden from teaching men. The context seems to indicate "in public" rather than private witnessing (aka preaching) or discipleship.

Suffice it to say there's much debate over the overall context. No need to rehash the whole debate again. As far as being Baptist in regards to the verse, debating the interpretation of the verse is, imo, permissible, and does not "deny" scripture. IOW, I think the issue for Baptist churches fall under the Distinctive of local autonomy on such matters. If a local church interprets scripture to permit women in roles fo authority, then it doesn't mean they're not baptist. Again, they may be liberal in this specific area, but still baptist. </font>[/QUOTE]There are some here that go beyond that. One in particular states that Paul's writings aren't scripture nor authoritative... and worse yet, represent bigotry toward women.

For my purposes, it takes significant denial/twisting of scripture to justify a female pastor. Whether that church continues to operate under the Baptist banner or not... they have ceased to be baptistic in their respect for scripture.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I was trying to be a "kinder, gentler ScottJ".

And you succeeded. Alas, I failed to acknowlege that

There are some here that go beyond that. One in particular states that Paul's writings aren't scripture nor authoritative... and worse yet, represent bigotry toward women.

Clearly, it's one thing to debate and disagree interpretation and application (and still be Baptist), but it's a whole other thing to deny with a broadbrush the authority of any scriptural writings.

For my purposes, it takes significant denial/twisting of scripture to justify a female pastor.

I disagree. I've heard the arguments in favor of, and, while I personally disagree with the conclusions, I don't think it takes the twisting you cite. Just so we're clear, I don't approve of women pastors for Baptists, but I'm SBC and that may have something to do with it

Whether that church continues to operate under the Baptist banner or not... they have ceased to be baptistic in their respect for scripture.

As much as I disapprove of female pastors, I disagree with your conclusion here. Again, the issue of ine of interpretation, and therefore, such interpretation is protected by the Distinctives. Yes, that church may qualify as liberal, but they are not disqualified as being Baptist.

 

[SuperBaptist]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I would say that Baptists held ground so long as it was less a denomination and more a set of biblical principles/distinctives.

I don't mind people like superbaptist on one extreme or Fred Phelps on the other believing whatever they want to believe... but it sickens me that they do so under the banner of a set of ideals that contradicts both of them. Neither of them express hold to baptistic beliefs but both bring dishonor to the label by claiming it publicly.

You know who dishonors the Baptist Church, those haters, who in the name of Christ, kill and repress.

It has been difficult for me to stay in the Baptist church when so many have brought embarrassment and shame to our Name.

My church is very loving and thankfully there are many who are still. But, it is true, we had to divorce ourselves from those that profess hate. Many in the SBC are still very loving, and many are not. ABC, on the other hand, has been everything I believe Christ intends.

I invite any here to join us in Christ's love. You will look back and see the trail of sinners left professing to be Baptists themselves and you will feel relief to be equally yolked with those who welcome you with loving arms.

Anyone with a soul is qualified to minister, women included. In the time of Corinthians, they were uneducated and brought discord to the church. This is why Paul specifically hushed them. I only wish some men I have met in the church, would sit down, read and listen for a change!