Easy there.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Should a woman be a pastor?
- Thread starter Rose of Sharon
- Start date
Easy there.
Um really?
Ephesians 5:22-27 KJV
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. [25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Last edited:
Yes that’s exactly it because it’s not recorded that Titus was ever circumcised it proves not only that it never happened but that we cannot have the Torah as the rule over the assembly today. Seriously? What is the standard for righteousness? Seriously what is the standard for right and wrong without the Torah? Please be specific.
@Jim an Apostle you're attempting to logic around Paul's clear prohibition. That's not rightly dividing the word.
We're talking about teaching doctrine, not prophesying, not preaching the gospel. Those examples do not apply, but you had to use them because there are no examples of women teaching doctrine. Because none of the early churches allowed it, nor did they for close to 1900 years. Well ok, that's not strictly true (Rev 2:20); but you couldn't use that example either.
"Paul did not promote a ideology of Law but rather of Grace"
And yet he says "I do not allow a woman to teach". I am simply echoing what Paul said. I reject licentiousness. Using grace to cancel commands in scripture is kindergarden theology.
"Paul was not trying to establish a new Law"
Paul was an Apostle, as such he was forming churches and setting the standards for how they would operate; things which all the churches practiced.
"Paul's instructions were not a one size fits all, for all time and eternity! Paul was speaking to a time and place."
This can be, and is, used to toss out any and all instructions in the NT and is a favorite of whose who would toss out scripture and 2000 years of theology to make them acceptable to modern ears. I reject it. Of course you had to go there, since Paul's prohibition is simple and straightforward; the only real way out of it is to start tossing out scripture, saying they don't apply to us today.
And this is really the crux of the matter. Prohibiting women from teaching is extremely offensive to modern ears, steeped in feminism and ideas of equality. Of course they don't want the old ways to apply to today.
You must choose....will you follow Christ and His ways or the ways of the world? It's one or the other, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
We're talking about teaching doctrine, not prophesying, not preaching the gospel. Those examples do not apply, but you had to use them because there are no examples of women teaching doctrine. Because none of the early churches allowed it, nor did they for close to 1900 years. Well ok, that's not strictly true (Rev 2:20); but you couldn't use that example either.
"Paul did not promote a ideology of Law but rather of Grace"
And yet he says "I do not allow a woman to teach". I am simply echoing what Paul said. I reject licentiousness. Using grace to cancel commands in scripture is kindergarden theology.
"Paul was not trying to establish a new Law"
Paul was an Apostle, as such he was forming churches and setting the standards for how they would operate; things which all the churches practiced.
"Paul's instructions were not a one size fits all, for all time and eternity! Paul was speaking to a time and place."
This can be, and is, used to toss out any and all instructions in the NT and is a favorite of whose who would toss out scripture and 2000 years of theology to make them acceptable to modern ears. I reject it. Of course you had to go there, since Paul's prohibition is simple and straightforward; the only real way out of it is to start tossing out scripture, saying they don't apply to us today.
And this is really the crux of the matter. Prohibiting women from teaching is extremely offensive to modern ears, steeped in feminism and ideas of equality. Of course they don't want the old ways to apply to today.
You must choose....will you follow Christ and His ways or the ways of the world? It's one or the other, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
In 1Corinthians 7:12, Paul says this; “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:”
Paul will place his opinions in the scripture. Great opinions, but they are opinions. @rockfox, since the verse you used begins with “I do not” leaves us with a strong probability this is based on Paul’s preference. It does not leave us with a clear command from the Lord. Guidance? Absolutely. I personally would not want to go to a church whose pastor is a woman. That is my own personal bias. And I know it. Just as your writings clearly show bias on your part.
1 Cor 7 is the only place in scripture that Paul gives his personal opinion and he is very clear about that; it is the highly unusual exception that does not apply to his other writings. "I do not" simply means what he does, it is preceded by an imperative, "a woman must" and followed by an explanation grounded in the garden.
So Paul's practices and writings, are they mere opinions or are they from the Lord? This tells us...
That all the major traditions of Christianity followed Paul's practice here tells you that they did not view this as a mere opinion that might be disregarded.
The practice of women teaching, it does not come from scripture, it does not even come from human Christian traditions. It's root is in the devilish modern theories of equality which war against God and scripture.
I could accept what you said, if it were not for the women mentioned in ministry. There are others, but Priscilla, Aquila and Phebe come to mind without a search.
Frankly, I have heard women speak who were more led of the Spirit than some male preachers I’ve heard. And I’ve heard women speak and I will not go back and listen to them again. They weren’t good.
My bottom line on this subject, I see both sides of this coin. I see and understand your position. I see and understand the women mentioned in the NT.
Until I see clear scripture that deals with these opposing views, then I will deal with each minister in a one on one basis. But as stated earlier, would I sit under a female pastor? No. That’s my personal bias.
But it ended up in scripture, so now it is a binding opinion, like a Supreme Court opinion.
Last edited:
! Cor 14:37,38
"37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."
Paul seems to slam the door on any disagreement here.
"37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."
Paul seems to slam the door on any disagreement here.
You are in severe error brother. Paul's writings are Divinely inspired scripture and they are for all times and all people.
You can't go ripping two thirds of the New Testament out and act like it's an argument. How dare you! You claim to be an apostle and to have a higher authority you claim is predicated on books of tye Bible you say aren't even universal scripture directly applicable to us today. Well who is it that wrote about your precious seven fold ministry? You cut off your own feet with this little bit of rhetorical wizardy.
First, I’m pretty sure that Aquila was a dude. He was the husband of Priscilla. Phoebe is said to be a servant, caring for the needs of her fellow believers. This doesn’t mean she was in leadership. From the context it sounds more like she cared for the physical needs of others, like cooking, cleaning, tending to those who were ill, etc.
Priscilla and her husband together spoke to Apollos, but Scripture doesn’t tell us what she said or how much she talked in the conversation, she could have just been like uhah, das right, amen!
Maybe that might be true, but there were times that I was convinced that @1stWife@Home was better equipped in leading our family and I better in submitting. However, we found (luckily) that the Bible teaches another model. So it is not so much who has to us better capabilities but what scripture says should lead us.
I am studying this out now. If I am correct, I will be putting my texts on this subject on hold until I’m done. But when I’m done, I won’t need others interpretations to be solidified on the subject.
A warning to all outsiders reading these threads, if you lack in your studies on a given subject, you WILL be pushed into your own personal study time. Kinda of the old saying, Study to shew thyself approved unto God.
Thanks man! I thought that was said somewhere in the NT but couldn't pick it out. It's even said in the context of this very issue...
Women were to be silent. While a woman might seek to use learning as an excuse to get around the silence, Paul shuts that down. Even her need to seek answers or clarifications for learning was subordinate to the need for silence. And this makes sense in the context of her husband/father as her spiritual leader/teacher.
If women, unlike men, can't even speak to learn, how much more so is that true of teaching. Speaking to an assembly also carries with it a certain degree of power, even authority. And this is especially true for teachers. There is a saying about people who are good teachers: "they speak with authority".
But there is more to that bit than you'd expect at first glance. Questions can often be used as a way to teach or to direct the discussion. You might call these leading questions; it's also known as the Socratic method, which would have been very well known in Paul's time among his audience.
ROTFL!!!
What would have happened at the tree if Eve had understood and employed this?
or if Adam had had the backbone to tell her "No".
You use “What if’s” to to evaluate and make wiser decisions. Then you move on to “What now”. We are in the “What now” era. Many are still not learning from their pasts. Many have learned. Unfortunately, those that are still making unwise decisions have no clue their decisions are bad.