Women in the Church today

[st. Worm]

You're going to use the example of Deborah but will ultimately run into a few problems with this:...

Again, why do you again speak of that which you do not know?

Strange.

Experience. If someone is going to use an Old Testament example, then it will either be Deborah (which is the most prominent example), or a misapplication of either Ruth or Esther.

Why do you contine when you're in over your head?

Strange

It still amazes me that someone is so desperate to twist Scripture and bring in women pastors that they could possibly equate Deborah with a Christian church pastor. How ridiculous is that? That's about the same as saying the story of Rahab means prostitution is biblical.

sw

[apothanein kerdos]

You're going to use the example of Deborah but will ultimately run into a few problems with this:...

Again, why do you again speak of that which you do not know?

Strange.

Experience. If someone is going to use an Old Testament example, then it will either be Deborah (which is the most prominent example), or a misapplication of either Ruth or Esther.

Why do you contine when you're in over your head?

Strange

It still amazes me that someone is so desperate to twist Scripture and bring in women pastors that they could possibly equate Deborah with a Christian church pastor. How ridiculous is that? That's about the same as saying the story of Rahab means prostitution is biblical.

sw

But it is! The condemnations of prostitution are only refering to temple prostitutes! How dare you assert that God hasn't given these women a calling to be prostitutes! DOn't you understand you, not even the Bible, can question someone's individual calling?!?!?!

[Floatingaxe]

From the sublime to the ridiculous, now.

[st. Worm]

You're going to use the example of Deborah but will ultimately run into a few problems with this:...

Again, why do you again speak of that which you do not know?

Strange.

Experience. If someone is going to use an Old Testament example, then it will either be Deborah (which is the most prominent example), or a misapplication of either Ruth or Esther.

Why do you contine when you're in over your head?

Strange

It still amazes me that someone is so desperate to twist Scripture and bring in women pastors that they could possibly equate Deborah with a Christian church pastor. How ridiculous is that? That's about the same as saying the story of Rahab means prostitution is biblical.

sw

But it is! The condemnations of prostitution are only refering to temple prostitutes! How dare you assert that God hasn't given these women a calling to be prostitutes!

[firehill]

Likewise, I did demonstrate it, it occurs at verse 11 of chapter two....that is where the unit of authority of the church begins...it's when we see a context change.

Who's is 'we' refering to as in 'it's when we see a context change.'?

The people "we" whoever they are can see all kinds things and has nothing to do with WHERE in fact the context change takes place! You demonstrated where it occurs? Please do again. You posed many questions from what I remember and said that a lot of this and that doesn't make sense, that is by implication, to you.

[firehill]

From the sublime to the ridiculous, now.

[apothanein kerdos]

Likewise, I did demonstrate it, it occurs at verse 11 of chapter two....that is where the unit of authority of the church begins...it's when we see a context change.

Who's is 'we' refering to as in 'it's when we see a context change.'?

The people "we" whoever they are can see all kinds things and has nothing to do with WHERE in fact the context change takes place! You demonstrated where it occurs? Please do again. You posed many questions from what I remember and said that a lot of this and that doesn't make sense, that is by implication, to you.

You're stalling for time. This will be the third time I've had to restate it. The context change occures at verse 11 of Chapter 2, that is where the unit of authority of the church begins. Note:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 1 Timothy 2:9-10....

This fits in context with what is occuring prior to this verse, discussing how worship is conducted.

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 1 Timothy 2:11

This deals with prior context and future context, thus a transitionary verse...where the unit on authority begins.

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12

This is a complete change from verses 9-10, which shows that the context has changed completely. It is now dealing with authority and not a worship service. The scripture then goes on, in chapter three, to discuss how overseers/bishops/pastors are men seeking the office, not women. Before you jump in and refer to the deacon argument, look to chapter 3, verse 11 that refers to the qualifications of women as deacons.....we do not see this when it comes to authority.

[st. Worm]

I just feel it is important to observe the direct meaning of scripture as best we can.

Yes to be more direct with you, the Bible never says that only a man can be a pastor. And this fact cannot be refuted because the Bible simply never says it. You may interpret what the Bible does say as you wish but that is another matter.

It quite directly says 1) that Phoebe was a deacon and 2) that a deacon must 'be faithful to his wife.' The Bible does not contradict itself either.

Yes, it certainly does infer that and quite strongly. How can a woman be silent and preach? How can a woman preach and have authority when the Bible teaches only male authority in church? You are in denial.

sw

You are reponding with your opinion still. Quote the scriptures please and then address them. Where does the Bible teach 'only male authority in church'? Again, this is all your interpretation, opinion. I'm in denial? You don't want to hear the truth.

I gave you specific verses from the Word of God. If you don't believe the Bible is true then we are wasting our time. Further the church denied women pastors for 2000 years. If the Word of God and 2000 years of church history mean nothing to you then perhaps you should reconsider just what authority you are submitting to.

sw

'Further the church denied women pastors for 2000 years.' I've already responded to this. Have you kept up with all that has been posted on this board or not? The Bible is the final authority on all matters, not church history.

Another red herring. No one questions the authority of Scripture in this thread except those advocating women pastors. Further while church history is not the final authority, any practice that is consistantly applied for 2000 years in both Catholicism and Protestantism is hardly irrelevent.

sw

[Floatingaxe]

2000 years of misinterpretation is relevant, yes!

[LightofJesus]

Nero's Fiddle, you made some good points. But I'd like to take a look at this statement:

(Each of these women spoke to others of God's truth, though none of them preached.)

1-- What is the Biblical difference between preach and prophesy?

2-- Where is proof that women never spoke in God's name?

These questions point out some common misconceptions which are based on tradition instead of the Bible.

The NT church knew nothing of pulpits, professionals, or performances. There was no one designated "the preacher". Instead, there was a plurality of elders in each church, and these elders were simply the spiritually mature who demonstrated both the love of Christ and proper handling of the scriptures, who could be trusted to continue in the teachings of the apostles. Would anyone dare to say that women cannot be spiritually mature, handle the scriptures, or be trusted with the teachings of the apostles?

Paul tells us "What should you do then, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church." (1 Cor. 14:26 NET) So everyone participated, based not upon gender or social status or ethnic heritage, but on the gifting of the Holy Spirit. The speakers were "prophets", not "preachers" as we've become accustomed to, and there were several. And the Bible tells us "Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy" (Acts 2:18). Along with the daughters of Phillip who prophesied, we see then that women could be the speakers in a church meeting. That prophesying was speaking in God's name. There is no difference between what the male prophets would say in such meetings and what female prophets would say. And in the lists of spiritual gifts, there is never any hint that such gifts are given based upon gender.

To emphasize: prophecy is not an office but a gift.

If this is wrong I need to see scripture that contradicts what's been cited here. As for the common proof texts that are invariably appealed to, those have been covered in the linked articles in my previous post.

Excellent post, 2the Point!

I want to thank you, couldn't have said it better. If you really read your bible all through the ages God used WOMEN to do HIS exploits. Please, if you men think you can get all this work done on your own then you better get busy!!!

With LOVE