Your View On Women As Pastors

[Harold Garvey]

While that did happen among some who promoted higher criticism it did not happen to all of them.

If there is a derth in the land it effects the entire populous. If there is a poison in the pottage then some one had best put the right elements into it before it brings death to all who eat of it.

You show the poison of higher criticism and leave its effects to take whoever it pleases into whatever it pleases.

 

[Harold Garvey]

We do owe a lot to higher criticism.

Here's the grind: female pastors have nothing to do with higher criticism.

There are female pastors who have no idea what higher criticism.

Higher criticism allows females to pastor while the Bible does nothing to allow female pastors.

 

[Harold Garvey]

This has nothing to do with higher criticism. For example the word epistle simple means letter. They are synonyms. There is no criticism at all involved there, just a change of archaic English to modern English. There is much wisdom in Proverbs. Context always determines interpretation. It depends upon what portion of Scripture you speaking of.

Care to explain|?

Epistle has a much more broadness to the spectrum than a simple letter does.

I write letters, Paul worte Epistles.

For example in Proverbs 8 one could say that it is a chapter of wisdom personified.

yes, personification does allow one to identify with the precept.

We need to recognize the literary aspects of the Bible. That is simply a thorough study of God's Word, something we all should be involved. Higher Criticism is an out and out attack on the integrity of God's Word that denies the supernatural aspects of it, and its inspiration.

Could i say Amen! any louder?

 

[Gina B]

"One woman man" or "husband of one wife" is still a man regardless. Anything else is eisegesis.

I'm wondering if it's possible that at this time, men were still allowed to take more than one wife. Could it be that this was a cultural issue that needed to be addressed, and was addressed to men simply because men having more than one wife was an issue, while women having more than one husband was not an issue?

 

[Marcia]

I'm wondering if it's possible that at this time, men were still allowed to take more than one wife. Could it be that this was a cultural issue that needed to be addressed, and was addressed to men simply because men having more than one wife was an issue, while women having more than one husband was not an issue?

It's translated as "a one-woman kind of man." It does not refer to having mor than one wife at a time, but rather a faithful husband.

However, this is not the definitive scripture against women pastors. The passage I posted 4 times (!) is: 1 Tim. 2:12-15, which reveals that the reasons are not cultural, but have to do with God's order. Eph. 5:23 plays into this as well.

 

[webdog]

I'm wondering if it's possible that at this time, men were still allowed to take more than one wife. Could it be that this was a cultural issue that needed to be addressed, and was addressed to men simply because men having more than one wife was an issue, while women having more than one husband was not an issue?

I think that is one of the very reason Paul gave that requirement, polygamy was normal then, but the main reason is the need to know how to lead your own family before you can run God's family, hence the need to be married.

The rendering may be "one woman man", but since sexual relations were not allowed prior to marriage, there was no "dating" back then. The engagement was considered along the lines of already being married.

When I was single, I would find it quite hard to not want to be intimate with my girlfriends. I don't see how Paul was allowing a single man with a girlfriend to be an elder or deacon...it just doesn't make sense as it violates some of the other requirements.
"husband of one wife" is the correct rendering.

 

[TCGreek]

Higher criticism allows females to pastor while the Bible does nothing to allow female pastors.

Again, What of higher criticism that allows women to be pastors? Give me an example or two of this assertion.

 

[TCGreek]

Higher Criticism is an out and out attack on the integrity of God's Word that denies the supernatural aspects of it, and its inspiration.

Higher Criticism dealt first with matters of authorship, composition, historical background, and so on.

But HC morphed into something totally evil, that is, becoming anti-supernatural.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I'm wondering if it's possible that at this time, men were still allowed to take more than one wife. Could it be that this was a cultural issue that needed to be addressed, and was addressed to men simply because men having more than one wife was an issue, while women having more than one husband was not an issue?

No, culture doesn't take the higher p[osition above godliness. All the men who had more than one wife suffered greatly for it.

 

[Harold Garvey]

It's translated as "a one-woman kind of man." It does not refer to having mor than one wife at a time, but rather a faithful husband.

However, this is not the definitive scripture against women pastors. The passage I posted 4 times (!) is: 1 Tim. 2:12-15, which reveals that the reasons are not cultural, but have to do with God's order. Eph. 5:23 plays into this as well.

A one woman man is faithful regardless of how we define it.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I think that is one of the very reason Paul gave that requirement, polygamy was normal then, but the main reason is the need to know how to lead your own family before you can run God's family, hence the need to be married.

Polygamy has always been against the word of God and sin is never normal.

The rendering may be "one woman man", but since sexual relations were not allowed prior to marriage, there was no "dating" back then. The engagement was considered along the lines of already being married.

thus a single man has no place in the pastor's role.

When I was single, I would find it quite hard to not want to be intimate with my girlfriends. I don't see how Paul was allowing a single man with a girlfriend to be an elder or deacon...it just doesn't make sense as it violates some of the other requirements.
"husband of one wife" is the correct rendering.

I'm amazed.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Again, What of higher criticism that allows women to be pastors? Give me an example or two of this assertion.

This topic is riddled with them. Maybe you're making reference to something inparticlaur about your idea of HC?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Higher Criticism dealt first with matters of authorship, composition, historical background, and so on.

But HC morphed into something totally evil, that is, becoming anti-supernatural.

And HC has many counterparts that accompany it against the doctrines and precepts of the Bible. They try to replace them with humanistic reasoning ans concepts.:godisgood:

 

[TCGreek]

This topic is riddled with them. Maybe you're making reference to something inparticlaur about your idea of HC?

Just one example! Is it so difficult to give me one example of your accusation?

 

[gb93433]

We need to recognize the literary aspects of the Bible. That is simply a thorough study of God's Word, something we all should be involved.

I agree, but it was not until rather recently that the historical context was even widely recognized. The literary aspect of Proverbs was not recognized until recently either. Literary genre and form criticism are part of higher criticism. It was the higher critics of not too many years ago that came up with the way the conservatives (most but not all) interpret Proverbs. Anyone who lumps everything into one camp or another will soon find they are wrong. I find it interesting that conservatives now use things the liberals once bought into. For example WWJD.

Higher Criticism is an out and out attack on the integrity of God's Word that denies the supernatural aspects of it, and its inspiration.

It tends to read that way and I know that some diminish that aspect of scripture. There are also other higher critics who share their faith a lot too. Read a little more about who came up with and when about how to interpret Proverbs correctly. Letters are also part of form criticism.

Higher criticism may or may not be an attack on God's word depending on how you use it. Yes it can be dangerous in the hands of the ignorant just as the literal method of interpretation can be dangerous in the hands of the ignorant. Non-Christians quote the ignorant all the time. It is like any other . . ism--imperfect. It is just like calvinism and arminianism--an attack on God's word and imperfect.

 

[gb93433]

And HC has many counterparts that accompany it against the doctrines and precepts of the Bible. They try to replace them with humanistic reasoning ans concepts.:godisgood:

Your are right just as dispensationalism following on the heels of German Rationalism does.

Those who teach that scripture must only be interpreted literalistically are false teachers. Who says that about them today?

 

[webdog]

Polygamy has always been against the word of God and sin is never normal.

You can't prove the first by Scripture alone, and I agree...sin is never normal.

thus a single man has no place in the pastor's role.

That's what I said what I said...I agree.

I'm amazed.

AT what? That husband of one wife is the correct rendering? That God designed married men to be elders and deacons? That I am a sinner? Little more clarification...

 

[webdog]

A one woman man is faithful regardless of how we define it.

So if Hugh Hefner decided to date one woman at a time you would deem him "faithful"? A one woman man has nothing to do with being faithful if they are living in sin.

 

[gb93433]

If there is a derth in the land it effects the entire populous. If there is a poison in the pottage then some one had best put the right elements into it before it brings death to all who eat of it.

You show the poison of higher criticism and leave its effects to take whoever it pleases into whatever it pleases.

Using your same principle: All men lie therefore they should never be welcomed in the church? All men are sinners and there is sin in the church therefore no man should ever pastor? All who listen to him will reap the benefits of death?

Any conservative today who interprets Proverbs correctly interprets the book as the results of the work of those who were involved in higher criticism. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

[FlyForFun]

Any conservative today who interprets Proverbs correctly interprets the book as the results of the work of those who were involved in higher criticism. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water?

Hunh?

Prove this, please.

I'll wait.

:sleeping_2: