Women pastors

[Vickilynn]

At the risk of being upbraided by a mod, I have in all honesty to confess that I didn't find BrotherJohn's words offensive once he had fully explained himself. His use of the word "w****" was directly from the AV - the original and inspired translation of the Bible into the English language. For instance:

Shalom Ruth,

Aww come one! You know better! It was asked REPEATEDLY the Mods to not use that word as it is culturally offensive and considered profanity.

You mean you refuse to temper your use of that word and use one less culturally offensive on this board even though asked repeatedly?

Maybe YOU weren't offended, but the point is, there are young people on this board who WOULD be offended (like my children) and it is consideration for others than is at stake here.

We are NOT to give offense in the delivery of the message.

If you REALLY don't want to be contentious about it and get your answer, you should PM Wayne (since he is a Mod and made the requests), not re-post the word (several times BTW) that has been identified as offensive as asked by him NOT to be used.

Sorry, Vicki, I still don't get it. I have always read the KJV where the words w*** and w**** are used many times. Please tell me why the KJV is now considered so offensive that I may no longer quote from it?

If I am ever banned from quoting from the KJV that will be the day that I shake the dust from my feet and leave.

In Jesus,

Ruth

Shalom Ruth,

Why are you doing this deliberately hijacking this thread for this issue? Please PM Wayne. This thread is NOT about the KJV or your rights, it's about consideration for the people reading. Is your KJV worth more to you than them??

Do you not care if you cause someone to stumble? If not, you might consider if the KJV is an idol.

Romans 14:

20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.

Footnotes:

BTW, my name is Vickilynn. Thanks!

[st. Worm]

Also did the church ever have an official position on slavery?

sw

I believe the Baptist official position was that slavery was Scripturally acceptable. We argued with a barrage of Scriptures (taken out of context I will acknowledge) as our defense. As a Baptist I can say that throughout history Baptists have almost always been on the wrong side of important issues. Baptists fought in the war FOR slavery. Now we barely acknowledge that the denomination was involved or wrong.

In fact the way that it was argued, Baptists could easily put up a strong argument for polygamy if our leaders were so inclined.

"Baptist official position"? LOL! How many baptist denominations and churches are there out there? If you look hard enough you could probably find one that says Jesus arrived here in a UFO. That however would not make it a legitimate serious position of the universal catholic church. At one time some in the church believed the Earth to be the center of the solar system based on nothing in Scripture. However the prohibition against women preaching is quite clear and any modern change in that has been based on cultural ideas about equality and has nothing to do with the Bible.

sw

[methinkshe]

At the risk of being upbraided by a mod, I have in all honesty to confess that I didn't find BrotherJohn's words offensive once he had fully explained himself. His use of the word "w****" was directly from the AV - the original and inspired translation of the Bible into the English language. For instance:

Shalom Ruth,

Aww come one! You know better! It was asked REPEATEDLY the Mods to not use that word as it is culturally offensive and considered profanity.

You mean you refuse to temper your use of that word and use one less culturally offensive on this board even though asked repeatedly?

Maybe YOU weren't offended, but the point is, there are young people on this board who WOULD be offended (like my children) and it is consideration for others than is at stake here.

We are NOT to give offense in the delivery of the message.

If you REALLY don't want to be contentious about it and get your answer, you should PM Wayne (since he is a Mod and made the requests), not re-post the word (several times BTW) that has been identified as offensive as asked by him NOT to be used.

Sorry, Vicki, I still don't get it. I have always read the KJV where the words w*** and w**** are used many times. Please tell me why the KJV is now considered so offensive that I may no longer quote from it?

If I am ever banned from quoting from the KJV that will be the day that I shake the dust from my feet and leave.

In Jesus,

Ruth

Shalom Ruth,

Why are you doing this deliberately hijacking this thread for this issue? Please PM Wayne. This thread is NOT about the KJV or your rights, it's about consideration for the people reading. Is your KJV worth more to you than them??

Do you not care if you cause someone to stumble? If not, you might consider if the KJV is an idol.

Romans 14:

20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.

Footnotes:

BTW, my name is Vickilynn. Thanks!

I am not hi-jacking this thread, I am actually attempting to give some support to the OP. As for conducting this contention via PM, I would prefer that it was done openly, otherwise I might be accused of publishing a PM against the confidential spirit of such communications, an accusation that has already been levelled in this thread.

Therefore, I publically request that all or any mods give a ruling vis a vis quoting from the AV, with especial regard to the fact that some people (you, in particular Vickilynn) have found certain words (whore, whoring) used in the AV culturally offensive. If it transpires that quoting from the AV is not acceptable at Worthy, then I shall of course respect that decision and leave immediately.

Perhaps if you reported this post to a mod you would get a quicker response than just waiting for a mod to stumble across it.

In Jesus,

Ruth

[Marnie]

Is the topic of women being pastors, elders, deacons or teachers something that is forbidden to be discussed on this board? I have done many searches and all the threads on this issue seem to have been closed for various reasons. I cannot believe that this is a topic that no one is interested in, especially by the number of posts in those closed threads. So what gives? If people are not able to discuss this issue calmly and lovingly then would that not be a reflection on the person themselves rather than the topic? I understand that any Christian discussion board would want to prevent profanity and abuse, but I cannot believe that any Christian would be in favor of the censorship of the discussion of ideas. If that it the case then I guess I will continue my journey in search of a Christian board which holds dear the concepts of free speech and thought.

I have no problem with women preachers and teachers within the church. I do have a problem with women pastors, though. We had a terrible situation in my church. I became an ordained elder and Session member during a time when we had a female interim pastor and every single member on the Session was female. I can tell you, we got NOTHING done. We couldn't make a decision to save our lives. Thank the Lord, He led a man of G-d to our congregation to give us much-needed pastoral direction and leadership skills.

I'm not even going to comment on Joyce Meyers. ugh.

[firehill]

1 Corinth. 14:33-36

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?

v.36 is Paul's refutation of his opponents. Also if you look at the context

you'll see that Paul just got done saying t hat all may prophesy but in turn and before that the context is about speaking prophecy. Further if you look at more context like verse 37 you'll also see that he's tying in his refutation with prophesy in which case he already said in the previous context that all may prophesy. Finaly, do tell where the LAW is written that paul is refering to! No one in history has been able to point to the Law because it wasn't biblical. Also if Paul allowed women to speak prophecy and then turned around and said they couldn't then he contradicted himself which he would not do.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

1 Timothy 2:8-14

8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

There's a current thread open for discussing the 1 Tim 2 passage:

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=63496

[OopsMartin]

Also did the church ever have an official position on slavery?

sw

I believe the Baptist official position was that slavery was Scripturally acceptable. We argued with a barrage of Scriptures (taken out of context I will acknowledge) as our defense. As a Baptist I can say that throughout history Baptists have almost always been on the wrong side of important issues. Baptists fought in the war FOR slavery. Now we barely acknowledge that the denomination was involved or wrong.

In fact the way that it was argued, Baptists could easily put up a strong argument for polygamy if our leaders were so inclined.

"Baptist official position"? LOL! How many baptist denominations and churches are there out there? If you look hard enough you could probably find one that says Jesus arrived here in a UFO. That however would not make it a legitimate serious position of the universal catholic church. At one time some in the church believed the Earth to be the center of the solar system based on nothing in Scripture. However the prohibition against women preaching is quite clear and any modern change in that has been based on cultural ideas about equality and has nothing to do with the Bible.

sw

Yes, so true the Baptist denomination is wide and varied. However at the time of the slavery question and war on same, there was one major section of Baptists that stood solidly for slavery and claimed Biblical support behind keeping slavery. And they also said that clearly there is no prohibition in Scripture against slavery and any modern change was based on cultural ideas about equality that has nothing to do with the Bible. So you can see that just claiming Bible support is not the same thing as actual contextual exegesis of Scripture.

[st. Worm]

1 Corinth. 14:33-36

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?

v.36 is Paul's refutation of his opponents. Also if you look at the context

you'll see that Paul just got done saying t hat all may prophesy but in turn and before that the context is about speaking prophecy. Further if you look at more context like verse 37 you'll also see that he's tying in his refutation with prophesy in which case he already said in the previous context that all may prophesy. Finaly, do tell where the LAW is written that paul is refering to! No one in history has been able to point to the Law because it wasn't biblical. Also if Paul allowed women to speak prophecy and then turned around and said they couldn't then he contradicted himself which he would not do.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

1 Timothy 2:8-14

8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

There's a current thread open for discussing the 1 Tim 2 passage:

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=63496

Sorry but I am including it in this thread since its completely relevant or are you saying God's word can only be used in one thread at a time? If you can't address it that is fine.

sw

[st. Worm]

Also did the church ever have an official position on slavery?

sw

I believe the Baptist official position was that slavery was Scripturally acceptable. We argued with a barrage of Scriptures (taken out of context I will acknowledge) as our defense. As a Baptist I can say that throughout history Baptists have almost always been on the wrong side of important issues. Baptists fought in the war FOR slavery. Now we barely acknowledge that the denomination was involved or wrong.

In fact the way that it was argued, Baptists could easily put up a strong argument for polygamy if our leaders were so inclined.

"Baptist official position"? LOL! How many baptist denominations and churches are there out there? If you look hard enough you could probably find one that says Jesus arrived here in a UFO. That however would not make it a legitimate serious position of the universal catholic church. At one time some in the church believed the Earth to be the center of the solar system based on nothing in Scripture. However the prohibition against women preaching is quite clear and any modern change in that has been based on cultural ideas about equality and has nothing to do with the Bible.

sw

Yes, so true the Baptist denomination is wide and varied. However at the time of the slavery question and war on same, there was one major section of Baptists that stood solidly for slavery and claimed Biblical support behind keeping slavery. And they also said that clearly there is no prohibition in Scripture against slavery and any modern change was based on cultural ideas about equality that has nothing to do with the Bible. So you can see that just claiming Bible support is not the same thing as actual contextual exegesis of Scripture.

That is fine but nothing you have said lends support to women pastors. There is simply no biblical evidence to overturn the church's historic 2000 year old position on the topic and therein lies the problem for the liberal churches that have taken this path. I have seen their arguments and they not convincing and they are easily overcome. There is a huge burden of proof for such a great change and the side supporting women pastors simply cannot meet it.

sw

[Eliyahuw]

At the risk of being upbraided by a mod, I have in all honesty to confess that I didn't find BrotherJohn's words offensive once he had fully explained himself. His use of the word "w****" was directly from the AV - the original and inspired translation of the Bible into the English language. For instance:

Shalom Ruth,

Aww come one! You know better! It was asked REPEATEDLY the Mods to not use that word as it is culturally offensive and considered profanity.

You mean you refuse to temper your use of that word and use one less culturally offensive on this board even though asked repeatedly?

Maybe YOU weren't offended, but the point is, there are young people on this board who WOULD be offended (like my children) and it is consideration for others than is at stake here.

We are NOT to give offense in the delivery of the message.

If you REALLY don't want to be contentious about it and get your answer, you should PM Wayne (since he is a Mod and made the requests), not re-post the word (several times BTW) that has been identified as offensive as asked by him NOT to be used.

Sorry, Vicki, I still don't get it. I have always read the KJV where the words w*** and w**** are used many times. Please tell me why the KJV is now considered so offensive that I may no longer quote from it?

If I am ever banned from quoting from the KJV that will be the day that I shake the dust from my feet and leave.

In Jesus,

Ruth

Shalom Ruth,

Why are you doing this deliberately hijacking this thread for this issue? Please PM Wayne. This thread is NOT about the KJV or your rights, it's about consideration for the people reading. Is your KJV worth more to you than them??

Do you not care if you cause someone to stumble? If not, you might consider if the KJV is an idol.

Uhhhhh this caught my eye and, i am in agreement with the poster that it doesn't matter if someone finds it offensive, its Gods word, and therefore not subject to censorship or editing. i agree wtih methinkshe that if i were to be banned or prevented from quoting from Gods word they won't have to ban me. i'll shake the dust off my feet and leave this site since its mission would be for satan not God.

[firehill]

Sorry but I am including it in this thread since its completely relevant or are you saying God's word can only be used in one thread at a time? If you can't address it that is fine.

sw

Either way. I just think it's more orderly to discuss it there since the thread is specific to that verse (2:15) which required the discussion of the context of the verse (the passage) in order to understand v.15.

We can begin with the grammar. Paul uses 'a woman' which can be generic or specific and the context tells us which use it has. In other words it cannot be assumed without looking to the context whether or not Paul is meaning 'women' by 'a woman' and the inspired grammar is 'a woman' right after he spoke of 'women' in the previous vv9 & 10. So why did he changed from plural (vv.8 & 9) to singular? So the question is, was he prohibiting 'women' or just a specific woman? Start there?