Women preachers

[JesusFan]

are they part of the current movenment to water down what the scriptures teach, and to bring "feminism" into the church?/QUOTE]

Have you listened to anything I've said? All 3 of these individuals are evangelicals. They believe the Bible to be authoritative and would not, not even for a minute, toy with the idea of "watering down" what the Bible teaches. And they are much better equipped to adequately exegete the text than you or I.

Feminism didn't begin with the tragic thinking of the 60s. It's a movement way, way older that seeks to restore women into the rightful place that their Creator placed them originally.

The trinitarian argument for male headship is bogus. I'm not touching that at all.

Dude, I think maybe you need to stop talking so much around here and start listening a little bit better.

paul addressed this issue, and DID support headship as being from of the Lord...

was he wrong in that regard?

 

[Jerome]

The term Evangelical in no way implies or assures that one has a solid biblical world view. In fact in fact I believe Rob Bell and tony Campolo would call themselves evangelicals.

And the CBMW itself even claims to be Evangelical!

 

[mandym]

And the CBMW itself even claims to be Evangelical!

OK?

 

[jaigner]

The term Evangelical in no way implies or assures that one has a solid biblical world view. In fact in fact I believe Rob Bell and tony Campolo would call themselves evangelicals.

Rob Bell and Tony Campolo are evangelicals. Just because you disagree with them on non-essentials doesn't change that.

 

[mandym]

Rob Bell and Tony Campolo are evangelicals. Just because you disagree with them on non-essentials doesn't change that.

Actually I agree with that. But that does not ensure sound biblical positions. as they are clear examples of that.

 

[JesusFan]

Actually I agree with that. But that does not ensure sound biblical positions. as they are clear examples of that.

They would be part of the left leaning Church, and I feel much better staying on the right side of the road!

Also...

Evangeicals once believed just the same as Fundamentalists, except that we were OK with higher education and were willing to engage the culture on their own terms...

Think the left/liberal side of the Evangelicals have basically compromised the church/bible/gospel to the "lets make it sound good/seeker" type of Christianity!

Good ole Social Gospel just with a different name!

 

[mandym]

They would be part of the left leaning Church, and I feel much better staying on the right side of the road!

Also...

Evangeicals once believed just the same as Fundamentalists, except that we were OK with higher education and were willing to engage the culture on their own terms...

Think the left/liberal side of the Evangelicals have basically compromised the church/bible/gospel to the "lets make it sound good/seeker" type of Christianity!

Good ole Social Gospel just with a different name!

The best way I know to put it they have serious issues. Most definitely the far left side theologically. They can call themselves evangelicals but again being one does not ensure a sound biblical foundation.

 

[jaigner]

They would be part of the left leaning Church, and I feel much better staying on the right side of the road!

How are they liberal? Do they deny miracles and stuff like that?

NO! They are not part of protestant liberalism.

 

[mandym]

Neither one of them is a conservative. Campolo thinks he was saved through the heretical Centering prayer. Bell denies a literal wrath of God

 

[jaigner]

Neither one of them is a conservative. Campolo thinks he was saved through the heretical Centering prayer. Bell denies a literal wrath of God

Those are not liberal beliefs. You can argue that they are heretical, if you wish, but they're not liberal beliefs.

 

[HankD]

1 Corinthians 14
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

Personally, I have yet to see these scripture obeyed to the letter.​

Once a woman enters through the doors of the church she is not allowed to speak at all according to at least the 1 Corinthians passage.​

i.e.
She cannot have a conversation with anyone other than her husband and that at home only. Geography and XY coordinates are involved because Paul does say
" let them ask their husbands at home".​

Therefore
She cannot pray aloud.
She cannot teach other women.
She cannot teach children.
She cannot sing hymns aloud, etc, etc...​

Now if you say that's going to far with making the boundaries too narrow then you must justify any of the activities above involving speech with other scripture.​

Once you do that however you must then make allowances for others who might disagree with you in their view of the expanding of the literal boundaries of these scripture which seem to say that absolute silence is required of women in a church environment.

An inch or a mile, what's the difference if the allowed tolerance is ZERO?​

IMO, It's up to the pastor and deacons of any given local church where the boundaries are to be drawn as opposed to what looks like a requirement of absolute silence on the part of women in the local churches.​

Again I have yet to see these principles kept to the letter.​

However knowing academically of the historical culture of Paul's day, I am sure that is exactly what was meant. Absolute silence.​

How about it FAL, is that what is required of the women in your local church?​

Thanks
HankD​

 

[dcorbett]

The Pauline directives here were given to a specific people at a specific time for their ad hoc purpose. These are not intended to be normative regulations for the duration of time. Women can preach from a pulpit or a street corner, and God bless those who have the courage to do what he calls them to.

So nothing Paul told us in the epistles applies to us today, if what you are saying is true.

We know that Paul said this to an early congregation. We should be asking what this means to us today instead of superimposing ad hoc directives over every historical context.

Again, either the whole thing is true, or none of it is true.

 

[dcorbett]

The way that the Lord instructed through the Apostle regarding leadership in the local body though was NOT to be just accomodating to those times, but was/is to be seen as being normative going forward!

Was indeed some things that were transitional in that time period, some to historical situations, but this area of spiritual leadership was NOT one of them!

Exactly - but too many people sort out what is hard for them to follow, and then they say "Well, that only applies to the early church, not to TODAY" - Well, Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Good thing we don't say that grace only applied to the early church!!!

 

[jaigner]

So nothing Paul told us in the epistles applies to us today, if what you are saying is true.

Again, either the whole thing is true, or none of it is true.

Everything Paul said applies to us today. All of it is inspired and is useful for us today. The problem is, you can't simply read the Bible outside of its historical and grammatical context. You have to do your best to determine what it was saying to the group of people it was originally given to. We also know that God allows some things to happen sometimes that are not ideal in order for the purpose of the gospel to be carried out.

Again, read some of the books I mentioned earlier. These are not people watering down the Bible, but doing their best to interpret it correctly.

 

[MB]

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
In my opinion these passages are many times taken to far. If the women were to keep quite you'd have a lot fewer Sunday school teachers. If you're going to say that women should not be street preachers. Then you had better get more men to do it because there simply isn't enough men doing it.
MB

 

[Jerome]

they say "Well, that only applies to the early church, not to TODAY" - Well, Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Here's a great example of that:

The Bible says:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. Rom. 16:1

DCorbett says:

NOT as a deacon, and NOT as a Pastor. THOSE ARE MEN'S POSITIONS. PERIOD.

 

[JesusFan]

Those are not liberal beliefs. You can argue that they are heretical, if you wish, but they're not liberal beliefs.

deny the doctrines of hell bell
Holds to Universalism Bell
denies traditional hunman sexuality views/soft on jesus alone saves/social agenda Tony C

 

[JesusFan]

Everything Paul said applies to us today. All of it is inspired and is useful for us today. The problem is, you can't simply read the Bible outside of its historical and grammatical context. You have to do your best to determine what it was saying to the group of people it was originally given to. We also know that God allows some things to happen sometimes that are not ideal in order for the purpose of the gospel to be carried out.

Again, read some of the books I mentioned earlier. These are not people watering down the Bible, but doing their best to interpret it correctly.

again, you cannot reinterprete Pauline theology/doctrines based upon current understandings of roles of women, human sexuality etc

far too many are claiming that paul misunderstood, did not know as much as we do now etc

they read back into paul, making pauline theology of their own, NOT one paul wrote!

paul was NOT a 'gay basher", was not "hating women" etc

Modern times, refuse to accept that there ARE biblical truths regardless of the cultural situation, would always be true!

Agree with youthat there were things specific to their times/culture, but headship of males was NOT one of them!

 

[mandym]

Those are not liberal beliefs. You can argue that they are heretical, if you wish, but they're not liberal beliefs.

They are theological left doctrines. That is a fact that cannot be changed. In fact a denial of a literal wrath of God does not get any farther left.

 

[mandym]

Here's a great example of that:

The Bible says:


DCorbett says:

Rom 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, ESV

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae: ASV

Rom 16:1 I have good things to say about Phoebe, who is a leader in the church at Cenchreae. CEV

Rom 16:1 And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: DRB

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: KJV

Rom 16:1 But I commend our sister Phoebe to you, being a servant of the assembly in Cenchrea, LITV

Rom 16:1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, MKJV

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae: RV

Rom 16:1 I commend to you Phebe our sister, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: Webster

Rom 16:1 And I commend you to Phebe our sister--being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea-- YLT