The idea that there were women disrupting the meetings is not biblical, just something people made up in order to justify their attempt to change the command of God. You can preach, and pray for men, do anything God wants you to do, but keep in mind that God does not want you to seek a position of authority over men in the church. Sometimes God commands us to do something that we do not want to do, that is where the test comes in, will we obey God or something else.
Women Pastors? Help me.
- Thread starter DevonS
- Start date
-
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.
Are you Orthodox? That site is. Peter call himself an elder among elders. Every elder must be able to teach.
All the ministries of the Church, from the highest to the lowest, from that of apostle all the way on down, exist for no other purpose than to help all the laity grow up and mature in Christ. (That is from your link.)
Also, from this site
(http://www.bible-studys.org/Bible%20Books/1%20Peter/1%20Peter%20Chapter%205.html)
Since the primary objective of shepherding is feeding, that is teaching, every elder must be able to teach (John 21:15-17). Involved with the feeding of the flock is also protecting the flock (Acts 20:28-30). In both duties, it must be remembered that the flock belongs to God, not to the pastor. God entrusts some of His flock to the pastor of a church to lead, care for, and feed (verse 3).
He is not speaking of physical food, but the food of the Word of God. They are not to minister because of obligation to do so, but from love of the brethren. The minister must desire to help others. This should be his motivation for ministering, and not because they are compelled to do it. Ministry is not an occupation, it is a call.
“Not by constraint, but willingly”: Specifically, Peter may be warning the elders against a first danger, laziness. The divine calling (1 Cor. 9:16), along with the urgency of the task (Rom. 1:15), should prevent laziness and indifference. (2 Cor. 9:7).
Romans 16 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me..."
It has been argued that the diaconate differs from the eldership in that deacons are called to serve whereas elders are called to rule, and on this basis some have argued for opening the office of the deacon to women while reserving the elders for men. Women may serve, we are being told, even though they are not allowed to lead. This kind of distinction is artificial. Both the eldership and the diaconate are callings to service. Jesus Christ embodies all of the offices he has instituted in his church, and he too came into the world not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10: 45). Both elders and deacons serve by providing leadership in the church in their respective areas of service. 16:1-6 Phoebe, Priscilla and Mary | Alfred Place Baptist Church
All the ministries of the Church, from the highest to the lowest, from that of apostle all the way on down, exist for no other purpose than to help all the laity grow up and mature in Christ. (That is from your link.)
Also, from this site
(http://www.bible-studys.org/Bible%20Books/1%20Peter/1%20Peter%20Chapter%205.html)
Since the primary objective of shepherding is feeding, that is teaching, every elder must be able to teach (John 21:15-17). Involved with the feeding of the flock is also protecting the flock (Acts 20:28-30). In both duties, it must be remembered that the flock belongs to God, not to the pastor. God entrusts some of His flock to the pastor of a church to lead, care for, and feed (verse 3).
He is not speaking of physical food, but the food of the Word of God. They are not to minister because of obligation to do so, but from love of the brethren. The minister must desire to help others. This should be his motivation for ministering, and not because they are compelled to do it. Ministry is not an occupation, it is a call.
“Not by constraint, but willingly”: Specifically, Peter may be warning the elders against a first danger, laziness. The divine calling (1 Cor. 9:16), along with the urgency of the task (Rom. 1:15), should prevent laziness and indifference. (2 Cor. 9:7).
Romans 16 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me..."
It has been argued that the diaconate differs from the eldership in that deacons are called to serve whereas elders are called to rule, and on this basis some have argued for opening the office of the deacon to women while reserving the elders for men. Women may serve, we are being told, even though they are not allowed to lead. This kind of distinction is artificial. Both the eldership and the diaconate are callings to service. Jesus Christ embodies all of the offices he has instituted in his church, and he too came into the world not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10: 45). Both elders and deacons serve by providing leadership in the church in their respective areas of service. 16:1-6 Phoebe, Priscilla and Mary | Alfred Place Baptist Church
This idea that Christians can reject the clear command from God for men to be the leaders in the church, was started by the Pentecostal movement that begin around 1906. When this movement first became organized they decided to disobey God by teaching that women can have authority over men in the church. That Pentecostal movement was not of God in it's beginning neither is it of God today. There are many Christians in the Pentecostal movement and they should beware, for much of what is taught is not of God.
No, I am not.
But I read their articles quite often. They have a great authority about the first church topics, the Greek language etc. I like their insights.
I dont like their icons, Marry cult and other "modern" additions, though.
Hm, well, there is a problem with the English "service" (and possible angloamerican thinking because of it).
Diakonos is the servant (the one who serves to somebody, for example to the poor ones). Its in the word. So what distinction is artificial?
Presbyteros (elder) is somebody who has more authority in teaching, because he is, well, elder.
And Episcopos (bishop) was over the elders.
Do not get me wrong, even diakonos is a valuable service etc. I just do not think Tychicus´s went to Ephesus as diakonos (servant) but more like episcopos (bishop).
But I read their articles quite often. They have a great authority about the first church topics, the Greek language etc. I like their insights.
I dont like their icons, Marry cult and other "modern" additions, though.
Hm, well, there is a problem with the English "service" (and possible angloamerican thinking because of it).
Diakonos is the servant (the one who serves to somebody, for example to the poor ones). Its in the word. So what distinction is artificial?
Presbyteros (elder) is somebody who has more authority in teaching, because he is, well, elder.
And Episcopos (bishop) was over the elders.
Do not get me wrong, even diakonos is a valuable service etc. I just do not think Tychicus´s went to Ephesus as diakonos (servant) but more like episcopos (bishop).
Last edited:
Not when others are in the business of changing words to fit their theology. 1 Timothy clearly teaches the qualifications for pastors. 1 Corinthians 14 clearly states that women were to be silent in the church and not speak in tongues at all. Why? There is always order in what God sets up from the creation, to the OT tabernacle and to the NT church.
Homework...that one IS funny. If Angela showed clearly to YOU that the 'let the men lead position" is groundless then you could be convinced Jesus will return in a red suit, with raindeer, and on christmas eve. 1Cor 14:34 let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but to be under obedience as says the law...37 the things that I write unto you are the COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD. If you want to fight against God then that is your business.
S
The context of 1 Timothy 2:12 is the family/community setting not the corporate Church setting, and as such the man is always the head of the family. What Paul is reflecting in 1 Timothy 3:2, is not exclusion but simply the common reality of the day in that most leaders were men. There's no specific exclusion to a woman being a leader unless one takes what Paul teaches out of context. Paul says the same thing about deacons in v13, but we know he approved of women deacons based on Romans 16:1
I agree that a woman should not exert authority over her husband, but what if she is casting out a demon? 
Now, to prove I didn't make this up. There are several acceptable ways of explaining these passages and this is one of the top three.
[h=4]LET WOMEN KEEP SILENT[/h]Two passages in Paul’s writings at first seem to contradict the progressive ones. Keep in mind that these are the only two passages in the Bible that could remotely be construed as contradicting Paul’s endorsement of women in ministry.
First, Paul instructed women to be silent and save their questions about the service for their husbands at home (1 Corinthians 14:34—36). Yet, Paul could not mean silence under all circumstances, because earlier in the same letter he acknowledged that women could pray and prophesy in church (1 Corinthians 11:5); and prophecy ranked even higher than teaching (12:28).
Knowing ancient Greek culture helps us understand the passage better. Not all explanations scholars have proposed have proved satisfying. Some hold that a later scribe accidentally inserted these lines into Paul’s writings, but the hard evidence for this interpretation seems slender.18 Some suggest that Paul here quoted a Corinthian position (1 Corinthians 14:34,35), which he then refuted (verse 36); unfortunately, verse 36 does not read naturally as a refutation. Others think that churches, like synagogues, were segregated by gender, somehow making women’s talk disruptive. This view falters on two counts: First, gender segregation in synagogues may have begun centuries after Paul; and, second, the Corinthian Christians met in homes, whose architecture would have rendered such segregation impossible. Some also suggest that Paul addressed women who were abusing the gifts of the Spirit or a problem with judging prophecies. But while the context addresses these issues, ancient writers commonly used digressions, and the theme of church order is sufficient to unite the context.
Another explanation seems more likely. Paul elsewhere affirmed women’s role in prayer and prophecy (11:5), so he cannot be prohibiting all kinds of speech here. (In fact, no church that allows women to sing actually takes this verse to mean complete silence anyway.) Since Paul only addressed a specific kind of speech, we should note that the only kind of speech he directly addressed in 14:34—36 was wives asking questions.19 In ancient Greek and Jewish lecture settings, advanced students or educated people frequently interrupted public speakers with reasonable questions. Yet the culture had deprived most women of education. Jewish women could listen in synagogues, but unlike boys, were not taught to recite the Law while growing up. Ancient culture also considered it rude for uneducated persons to slow down lectures with questions that betrayed their lack of training.20 So Paul provided a long-range solution: The husbands should take a personal interest in their wives’ learning and catch them up privately. Most ancient husbands doubted their wives’ intellectual potential, but Paul was among the most progressive of ancient writers on the subject.21 Far from repressing these women, by ancient standards Paul was liberating them.22
This text cannot prohibit women’s announcing the word of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:4,5), and nothing in the context here suggests that Paul specifically prohibited women from Bible teaching. The only passage in the entire Bible that one could directly cite against women teaching the Bible is 1 Timothy 2:11—15.
Personally? I respect any requirements or teachings of any church I might visit or attend. But, I wouldn't join one which would stifle a woman's growth in the knowledge of the Lord.
Now, to prove I didn't make this up. There are several acceptable ways of explaining these passages and this is one of the top three.
[h=4]LET WOMEN KEEP SILENT[/h]Two passages in Paul’s writings at first seem to contradict the progressive ones. Keep in mind that these are the only two passages in the Bible that could remotely be construed as contradicting Paul’s endorsement of women in ministry.
First, Paul instructed women to be silent and save their questions about the service for their husbands at home (1 Corinthians 14:34—36). Yet, Paul could not mean silence under all circumstances, because earlier in the same letter he acknowledged that women could pray and prophesy in church (1 Corinthians 11:5); and prophecy ranked even higher than teaching (12:28).
Knowing ancient Greek culture helps us understand the passage better. Not all explanations scholars have proposed have proved satisfying. Some hold that a later scribe accidentally inserted these lines into Paul’s writings, but the hard evidence for this interpretation seems slender.18 Some suggest that Paul here quoted a Corinthian position (1 Corinthians 14:34,35), which he then refuted (verse 36); unfortunately, verse 36 does not read naturally as a refutation. Others think that churches, like synagogues, were segregated by gender, somehow making women’s talk disruptive. This view falters on two counts: First, gender segregation in synagogues may have begun centuries after Paul; and, second, the Corinthian Christians met in homes, whose architecture would have rendered such segregation impossible. Some also suggest that Paul addressed women who were abusing the gifts of the Spirit or a problem with judging prophecies. But while the context addresses these issues, ancient writers commonly used digressions, and the theme of church order is sufficient to unite the context.
Another explanation seems more likely. Paul elsewhere affirmed women’s role in prayer and prophecy (11:5), so he cannot be prohibiting all kinds of speech here. (In fact, no church that allows women to sing actually takes this verse to mean complete silence anyway.) Since Paul only addressed a specific kind of speech, we should note that the only kind of speech he directly addressed in 14:34—36 was wives asking questions.19 In ancient Greek and Jewish lecture settings, advanced students or educated people frequently interrupted public speakers with reasonable questions. Yet the culture had deprived most women of education. Jewish women could listen in synagogues, but unlike boys, were not taught to recite the Law while growing up. Ancient culture also considered it rude for uneducated persons to slow down lectures with questions that betrayed their lack of training.20 So Paul provided a long-range solution: The husbands should take a personal interest in their wives’ learning and catch them up privately. Most ancient husbands doubted their wives’ intellectual potential, but Paul was among the most progressive of ancient writers on the subject.21 Far from repressing these women, by ancient standards Paul was liberating them.22
This text cannot prohibit women’s announcing the word of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:4,5), and nothing in the context here suggests that Paul specifically prohibited women from Bible teaching. The only passage in the entire Bible that one could directly cite against women teaching the Bible is 1 Timothy 2:11—15.
Personally? I respect any requirements or teachings of any church I might visit or attend. But, I wouldn't join one which would stifle a woman's growth in the knowledge of the Lord.
1 Timothy clearly teaches the qualifications for overseers ("bishops" in the KJV, not "pastors"). You claimed in the post I challenged that the scripture forbade women from being pastors. You have not supported your statement. You have elsewhere argued the accuracy of every word in the KJV, so stand by your claim and deal with the complete absence of "pastor" in 1 Timothy or anywhere else, in reference to women. Support your statement, or admit that you can't.
P
If she married a demon, I'd say she has bigger issues!
Seriously, then she would be declaring the authority of Christ over the demon, not taking authority herself over her husband.
Seriously, then she would be declaring the authority of Christ over the demon, not taking authority herself over her husband.
I agree that a woman should not exert authority over her husband, but what if she is casting out a demon?
.,,.,.,,/\.,.,...,/\.,.,.\/.,.,
.,,.,.,,/\.,.,...,/\.,.,.\/.,.,
It's a comic book thing.
on a side note: If your husband is that unbearable; divorce him.
That is what married women(s) do in the USA.,.,..,.,. as my wife did to me
-
Last edited: