no women preachers

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

[Added by RoboOp] What is your stance?

  • Well the Bible is simply not clear on this subject, so we shouldn't have any doctrine on this matter

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paws4Jesus

Guest
a word satan himself loves even as he got Eve to compromise and go against the very Word of God, look where that got us all.

Hmmm well actually I 'compromise' daily with husband, friends, loved ones. Without compromise, we would just be mindless and heartless selfish beings.
 
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
I am woman and a Pastor as is my mother.
1ti 3:2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


So what does your wife think about you being a pastor?
 

earlyedition

Junior Member
Dec 30, 2002
25
1
1
43
it says the husband of one wife because Paul did not have to advise women to have one husband. Because many men in the bible had more than one wife and, women always had just one husband. If you take that verse litterally a sing man can't preach. So why address something that doesn't need it. My friend is a girl and a preacher. It says your sons and daughters will prophsey. I believe if God can call a man to do something he can call a woman to do it, too.
 
Jul 6, 2009
318
2
0
Yeah... EarlyEdition is right. The verse is precluding polygamists from being ordained, not saying that all ministers have to be married males.
 
J

jgrig2

Guest
it says the husband of one wife because Paul did not have to advise women to have one husband. Because many men in the bible had more than one wife and, women always had just one husband. If you take that verse litterally a sing man can't preach. So why address something that doesn't need it. My friend is a girl and a preacher. It says your sons and daughters will prophsey. I believe if God can call a man to do something he can call a woman to do it, too.
wrong wrong wrong. Polagamy was illegal in the time of the New testament by Roman Law. Any basic commentary will tell you that that deals with History. Genesis has one man and one woman which is refered to by Jesus in discussing marriage.

Let be me bold. Your friend is not a preacher. If she is preaching in the local church to men she is sinning against God and ought to repent. My money is she is either in a fringe pentecostal church or a liberal mainline church. Second ''Your sons and Daughters will prophesy''' does not mean preaching. The New testament doesn't say that women can't prophecy (see discussion order in the church 1 cor 14) btu that they OUGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Paul even embraces the gift of tongues but tells them to shut up for the greater purpose of order. Women may of course teach one another (as Peter's epistles say) and children (especially there own!) but Paul makes it clear that a woman cannot preach! You are picking and choosing what parts of the bible you like without dealing with others. You still have yet to deal with the exegesis of 1 cor. 14 on Paul saying all women are to remain silent in the church and where he says he does not permit a woman to have teaching authority over a man. Can you give a new testament example of where women preach or do the work of an elder?
 

pickles

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2009
14,479
182
63
This may be a bit off topic but my understanding of why women should not speak in church was more about the fact that women were in a seperate part from men in the church and it required that they had to yell across a distance to be heard. thus it was very disruputive for them to speak. This was taught by a person in a class my daughter took for ministry. he studied the history behind many of the rules given to the church. I dont know how true this is but an interesting thought on this subject. God bless, pickles
 
Jul 17, 2009
353
0
0
Let be me bold. Your friend is not a preacher. If she is preaching in the local church to men she is sinning against God and ought to repent. My money is she is either in a fringe pentecostal church or a liberal mainline church. Second ''Your sons and Daughters will prophesy''' does not mean preaching. The New testament doesn't say that women can't prophecy (see discussion order in the church 1 cor 14) btu that they OUGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Paul even embraces the gift of tongues but tells them to shut up for the greater purpose of order. Women may of course teach one another (as Peter's epistles say) and children (especially there own!) but Paul makes it clear that a woman cannot preach! You are picking and choosing what parts of the bible you like without dealing with others.
Just out of curiosity, and you can plead the 5th, do the women in your particular denomination cover their heads when they pray or attend your church?


God bless
 
D

DaveScotland

Guest
I think that there is one thing we are all forgetting, God is using women throughout the world who are spreading his message, I have felt the Holy spirit while being taught by a woman. I have seen people saved while listening to sermons by a woman, Surely if woman weren't allowed to teach, weren't aloud to preach the word of God, Then surely there ministries wouldn't be blessed in this way.
 
J

jgrig2

Guest
Just out of curiosity, and you can plead the 5th, do the women in your particular denomination cover their heads when they pray or attend your church?


God bless
lol, no but I do think this is a legtimate and biblical debate that should happen. WOmen in most evangelical churches have indeed couvered there heads during worship even during the victorian days. So while it is not commanded I do think its something that ought to be encouraged but not obligated. There is only 1 verse supporting this. As oppose to several and strong theological argument about women in the ordained ministry. So I think i am about 60% consistent on this, but I am willing to wait and work for reform in this area and not split or offends brothers and sisters in this.
 
J

jgrig2

Guest
I think that there is one thing we are all forgetting, God is using women throughout the world who are spreading his message, I have felt the Holy spirit while being taught by a woman. I have seen people saved while listening to sermons by a woman, Surely if woman weren't allowed to teach, weren't aloud to preach the word of God, Then surely there ministries wouldn't be blessed in this way.
HItler was quite popular. Satan has many followers. How many muslims are there? THe Catholic CHurch is the largest christian sect of all. Are these all blessed by God? We are commanded to defend the Gospel and where churches WRONGLY permit women to teach in a non-proper way The Spirit of God is so connected to the Word of God that people can be converted. I was mostlikely (I don't knwo when exactly) converted under the tutorage of an liberal-agnostic-female minister but she and I read the bible. This issue is not abstract for me its personal. I have a good freind from highshool who is an associate pastor at my old evangelical church. But Scripture is not silent and it is clear on this manner. Also look over all at all teh denominations that ordain women (UCC, united methodists, PCUSA, anglican, etc... and most of them are all in decline) so pragmatically speaking the largest groups that support women ordination are not growing statistically and most of them either approve of gay marriage or are moving in that direction if not for awesome African bishops!
 
J

jgrig2

Guest
I think that there is one thing we are all forgetting, God is using women throughout the world who are spreading his message, I have felt the Holy spirit while being taught by a woman. I have seen people saved while listening to sermons by a woman, Surely if woman weren't allowed to teach, weren't aloud to preach the word of God, Then surely there ministries wouldn't be blessed in this way.
And I am aware that the situation is different in scotland with a state church and the bizzareness of how the church is structured with much diversity. But a denial of gender roles will always lead to theological liberalism unless you can live with being completley inconstant. I don't know how you can say homoseuality is wrong but women's ordination is correct.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
I agree re: decline in theology in the mainstream denominations mentioned above.
To their credit, Catholics don't allow female priests. Where do you draw the line? A protestant church like anglican which might preach the correct Gospel but allow female priests, or Catholic who disallow female priests but might preach the wrong gospel?
 
J

jgrig2

Guest
I agree re: decline in theology in the mainstream denominations mentioned above.
To their credit, Catholics don't allow female priests. Where do you draw the line? A protestant church like anglican which might preach the correct Gospel but allow female priests, or Catholic who disallow female priests but might preach the wrong gospel?
At the same time the Anglican communion will also have heretics in it that deny the fact Jesus ever existed or event the existance of a personal God (Bishop Shelby Spong?). The anglican communion here in North Amreica is splitting up and is in chaos because of the issue of the authority of scripture and Dr. MLJ warned the anglicans this was coming back in the 60s and 70s when women ordination was started evangelicals should have left but made the decision to stay in wrongly I believe. And also Orthodox Rabis, and the orthodox church has the same policy on women in ministry. I could live with a sorta Tim Keller presbyterien compromise where women were called by local churches to serve UNORDAINED as deacons- under the authority of an ordained male deacon which was in all likely hood there 2nd and 3rd century function.
 
Jul 6, 2009
318
2
0
At the same time the Anglican communion will also have heretics in it that deny the fact Jesus ever existed or event the existance of a personal God (Bishop Shelby Spong?).
There are problems in ever denomination. Remember not to act like the lot of them are guilty of the sins of the few. I mean are you going to condemn all Baptists because of psychopaths like Fred Phelps.
 
Jul 17, 2009
353
0
0
At the same time the Anglican communion will also have heretics in it that deny the fact Jesus ever existed or event the existance of a personal God (Bishop Shelby Spong?). The anglican communion here in North Amreica is splitting up and is in chaos because of the issue of the authority of scripture and Dr. MLJ warned the anglicans this was coming back in the 60s and 70s when women ordination was started evangelicals should have left but made the decision to stay in wrongly I believe. And also Orthodox Rabis, and the orthodox church has the same policy on women in ministry. I could live with a sorta Tim Keller presbyterien compromise where women were called by local churches to serve UNORDAINED as deacons- under the authority of an ordained male deacon which was in all likely hood there 2nd and 3rd century function.
Female deacons were found 1st century. However, they served a very specific function. The female deaconess back then primarily dealt with female catechumens. They prepared them in matters of modesty and doctrine/teachings (and girl stuff and all that comes with it :p). There are some early accounts of female deaconesses being tortured by Rome in order to learn more about the *atheist Christians.

(They considered Christians to be atheist because they didn't believe in the many gods of the Empire and also refused to recognize the Emperor himself as being *ahem* the son of god, as he was called. Also, when Emperors became Emperor his arrival was often referred to as, the good news. So people would say, have you heard the good news? And then they'd tell you about the new Emperor, the son of god. When those early Christians were out there spreading the Good News about The actual Son of God it was not without a great deal of political charge.)

But this is what kind of baffles me. We see a word in the bible like, deacon, pastor, etc. We juxtapose our modern sense of what a deacon is and their roles and obligations onto the verse. We justify our doing so because we see the word deacon is written in the bible. This ties into the whole ordination thing. Laying on of hands (another elementary teaching) often has to do with instituting persons into various offices. Elders and Overseers played a much different role than we have them playing today. If you follow the historical growth of the early Church (it's not an easy task because of the volume of different historians and their agendas) you can actually see why and how Overseers became "Bishops". Why deaconesses fell by the way-side (though founds new meaning in modern protestantism) and why Elders weren't just senior citizens that had attended church for a long time.

The strange thing about the reformation was that it never intended to break away from many of the traditions but it seems that modern protestantism has become disconnected, not only from her Christian roots, but from the early protestant traditions as well. Should this evolutionary mutation be seen as progress? Or has it torn down the flood-gates surrounding the sheep allowing hordes of wolves to come and go without notice? Catholics get a lot of flack for their doctrines and historical record but the fruit growing in protestant pastures doesn't seem any less "strange".



On Catechumens:

In ecclesiology, a catechumen (pronounced /ˌkætəˈkjuːmən/; from Latin catechumenus, Greek κατηχουμενος, instructed) is one receiving instruction from a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism.

Although Catechumens existed by the time of the Letter to the Galatians (Strong's G2727), which mentions them, the practice slowly developed, from the development of doctrine and the need to test converts against the dangers of falling away. The Bible records (Acts 19) that the Apostle Paul while visiting some people who were described as "disciples", established they had received the baptism of John for the repentance of sins but had not yet heard of or received the Holy Spirit. Further, from the second century it appears that baptisms were held only at certain times of year, indicating that periods of instruction were the rule rather than the exception.

Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.), in his First Apology, cites instruction as occurring prior to baptism: As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.--- WIKI
 
J

jgrig2

Guest
Female deacons were found 1st century. However, they served a very specific function. The female deaconess back then primarily dealt with female catechumens. They prepared them in matters of modesty and doctrine/teachings (and girl stuff and all that comes with it :p). There are some early accounts of female deaconesses being tortured by Rome in order to learn more about the *atheist Christians.

(They considered Christians to be atheist because they didn't believe in the many gods of the Empire and also refused to recognize the Emperor himself as being *ahem* the son of god, as he was called. Also, when Emperors became Emperor his arrival was often referred to as, the good news. So people would say, have you heard the good news? And then they'd tell you about the new Emperor, the son of god. When those early Christians were out there spreading the Good News about The actual Son of God it was not without a great deal of political charge.)

But this is what kind of baffles me. We see a word in the bible like, deacon, pastor, etc. We juxtapose our modern sense of what a deacon is and their roles and obligations onto the verse. We justify our doing so because we see the word deacon is written in the bible. This ties into the whole ordination thing. Laying on of hands (another elementary teaching) often has to do with instituting persons into various offices. Elders and Overseers played a much different role than we have them playing today. If you follow the historical growth of the early Church (it's not an easy task because of the volume of different historians and their agendas) you can actually see why and how Overseers became "Bishops". Why deaconesses fell by the way-side (though founds new meaning in modern protestantism) and why Elders weren't just senior citizens that had attended church for a long time.

The strange thing about the reformation was that it never intended to break away from many of the traditions but it seems that modern protestantism has become disconnected, not only from her Christian roots, but from the early protestant traditions as well. Should this evolutionary mutation be seen as progress? Or has it torn down the flood-gates surrounding the sheep allowing hordes of wolves to come and go without notice? Catholics get a lot of flack for their doctrines and historical record but the fruit growing in protestant pastures doesn't seem any less "strange".



On Catechumens:

In ecclesiology, a catechumen (pronounced /ˌkætəˈkjuːmən/; from Latin catechumenus, Greek κατηχουμενος, instructed) is one receiving instruction from a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism.

Although Catechumens existed by the time of the Letter to the Galatians (Strong's G2727), which mentions them, the practice slowly developed, from the development of doctrine and the need to test converts against the dangers of falling away. The Bible records (Acts 19) that the Apostle Paul while visiting some people who were described as "disciples", established they had received the baptism of John for the repentance of sins but had not yet heard of or received the Holy Spirit. Further, from the second century it appears that baptisms were held only at certain times of year, indicating that periods of instruction were the rule rather than the exception.

Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.), in his First Apology, cites instruction as occurring prior to baptism: As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.--- WIKI
Please be careful quoting wikipedia. There is much debate how deacons functioned in the 1st century. We really don't know--let alone deaconesses. Catechists (the name for a person who did the catechism) and deacons were entirely different roles. A deacon could be be one but it was not necessary. Second By the time protestantism came around Catechists had a role though it was often considered the job of the elders as oppose to another person. Luther is a prime example of this. Also note that the role if wikipedia is right that it was females teaching females NEVER Males.
 
J

jgrig2

Guest
There are problems in ever denomination. Remember not to act like the lot of them are guilty of the sins of the few. I mean are you going to condemn all Baptists because of psychopaths like Fred Phelps.
Well Baptists are not a denomination. If the Phelps were apart of a Baptist fellowship of any sort then I would condemn that fellowship. Look at the Southern Baptist Convention. They were going liberal but turned it around and many of the liberal churches left (Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's included) but it cost them greatly to defend the Bible. Being a baptist is like saying''christian'' its just useful interms of understanding what you mean. That is why baptist associations (SBC, etc...) are so important. I don't know if heretical bishops in the Episcopal and Anglican church of Canada are so rare to be quite frank. When the leadership is heretical and the structure (seminaries, etc) is set up so where heretics continue to appoint heretics I think the battle is pretty much lost. But comparing phelps and the anglican communion is not a fair comparison because you are comparing 2 different systems of church government.
 
Jul 17, 2009
353
0
0
Please be careful quoting wikipedia. There is much debate how deacons functioned in the 1st century. We really don't know--let alone deaconesses. Catechists (the name for a person who did the catechism) and deacons were entirely different roles. A deacon could be be one but it was not necessary. Second By the time protestantism came around Catechists had a role though it was often considered the job of the elders as oppose to another person. Luther is a prime example of this. Also note that the role if wikipedia is right that it was females teaching females NEVER Males.

Oh, sure. I didn't use wiki to show the history of deacons but a very general understanding of catechumens for those that don't know.

In regards to Catechists, this too is a widely varying history because RCC and Orthodoxy and other regions that either or, vary in custom and practice. That's where we get into rites. My red flag would be against trying to formulate a position based entirely on a certain historical period apparent within any given sect/rite/region. When we want to demonize a sect, all we have to do is get out the fishing pole and eventually you can impose your agenda onto the present by manipulating the past.

spooky stuff


God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.