Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??
- Thread starter Major
- 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.
S
S
Onesimus and Philemon were Greek. Philemon a convert of Colossae not Israel. You are not applying the correct cultural context of Roman slaves which were considered property of their owners and could be killed with impunity. To apply Israeli Jewish culture about slaves who sold themselves into bondage for financial debt to Philemon a Greek convert of Colossae is somewhat disconcerting. Philemon a Roman citizen Slave Master could kill his slaves with impunity and Onesimus having fled probably did something that made him fear for his life.
I will assume you are not being serious about the conversation and just saying things that don't apply to the Greek culture of Colossae and Philemon and Onesimus because you did not consider what you were saying before you brought up your understanding about how Jews did things when it came to financial debt slaves. But I hope you can see how this kind of hermeneutic mistake can cause you to think you are sure about something and be very wrong. Cultural context (in this case Roman Masters to Slaves) is the context of Philemon and Paul sending Onesimus back to his master.
I have never said anything contrary to the husband being the head of the head of the family. If you can stick to that interpretation you will do well.
Women obey the call of God to preach and occupy every office in the church world wide and they do so while still being subject to their husbands and their husbands being head of the family. Ministry is a servant leadership role not a Lording it over the congregation in authority as you would try and make it which is probably why you think only a man can do it, but a man is not to Lord it over the congregation either. Women who minister in preaching and teaching the Word to the saints both men and women will continue to fulfill their calling and they will not concern themselves with the opinions of those who don't like it. The following counsel from Paul applies to woman ministers and they keep their eyes on Jesus:
1Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
This counsel applies to women ministers as well. Those that judge them will answer to God in that day. Woe to them that declare such women not saved or not having the Holy Spirit or not called of God to preach because they are female. They will have some serious discipline ahead of them in this life and suffer the loss of rewards from their lifetime of perpetuating a false condemnation on women called to preach. It would be much wiser to withhold judgment and let God sort it out.
I will assume you are not being serious about the conversation and just saying things that don't apply to the Greek culture of Colossae and Philemon and Onesimus because you did not consider what you were saying before you brought up your understanding about how Jews did things when it came to financial debt slaves. But I hope you can see how this kind of hermeneutic mistake can cause you to think you are sure about something and be very wrong. Cultural context (in this case Roman Masters to Slaves) is the context of Philemon and Paul sending Onesimus back to his master.
I have never said anything contrary to the husband being the head of the head of the family. If you can stick to that interpretation you will do well.
Women obey the call of God to preach and occupy every office in the church world wide and they do so while still being subject to their husbands and their husbands being head of the family. Ministry is a servant leadership role not a Lording it over the congregation in authority as you would try and make it which is probably why you think only a man can do it, but a man is not to Lord it over the congregation either. Women who minister in preaching and teaching the Word to the saints both men and women will continue to fulfill their calling and they will not concern themselves with the opinions of those who don't like it. The following counsel from Paul applies to woman ministers and they keep their eyes on Jesus:
1Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
This counsel applies to women ministers as well. Those that judge them will answer to God in that day. Woe to them that declare such women not saved or not having the Holy Spirit or not called of God to preach because they are female. They will have some serious discipline ahead of them in this life and suffer the loss of rewards from their lifetime of perpetuating a false condemnation on women called to preach. It would be much wiser to withhold judgment and let God sort it out.
S
Position papers are written to address things that might be controversial. Like differences on interpretation about things that Christians are always arguing about. I don't know what you are looking for. I am not aware of any protestant evangelical churches disagreeing on the blood of Christ. I doubt there is a need to write a positional paper on something no one is confused about.
"The Blood of Christ" is not normally a heading in doctrinal lists. You may be thinking of the doctrine of Atonement? If so I will post a separate reply with something that might answer your question.
You might find the answers you are looking for in one of these position papers such as:
Assurance of Salvation?
Reformed Theology?
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers
The doctrine on Atonement and the blood of Christ in detail would be found in a book on Systematic Theology. The AOG Seminaries do not use Text books written only by AOG theologians. They use the best text books available among protestant evangelicals. I have books by Wayne Grudem, Stanley Horton, FF Bruce and others. All of these theologians come from different denominational backgrounds and have educations from various seminaries but they agree in most areas and their Systematic Theology books are very similar.
I suppose if the Blood of Christ was a major point of contention among protestants today the AOG would write a position paper to take a stand on what they believed about the Blood of Christ but since that is not the case you can simply review any one of the Text books used in their seminaries. I will post something from one of their text books used in first year bible colleges in the next post.
"The Blood of Christ" is not normally a heading in doctrinal lists. You may be thinking of the doctrine of Atonement? If so I will post a separate reply with something that might answer your question.
You might find the answers you are looking for in one of these position papers such as:
Assurance of Salvation?
Reformed Theology?
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers
The doctrine on Atonement and the blood of Christ in detail would be found in a book on Systematic Theology. The AOG Seminaries do not use Text books written only by AOG theologians. They use the best text books available among protestant evangelicals. I have books by Wayne Grudem, Stanley Horton, FF Bruce and others. All of these theologians come from different denominational backgrounds and have educations from various seminaries but they agree in most areas and their Systematic Theology books are very similar.
I suppose if the Blood of Christ was a major point of contention among protestants today the AOG would write a position paper to take a stand on what they believed about the Blood of Christ but since that is not the case you can simply review any one of the Text books used in their seminaries. I will post something from one of their text books used in first year bible colleges in the next post.
Paul said that the slave should return to his master. If it meant his death then his death would have been for the testimony of Christ. It could have been so the slave master would receive a witness of Christ's ability to save the mans soul.
Women can never be the husband of one wife.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Women can never be the husband of one wife.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I have no denominational affiliation. The closest thing would be independent fundamental bible church. I would ascribe to the absolute necessity of the blood of Christ to atone for sin. It is not a figurative necessity but a literal necessity. Without the shedding of Christ's blood there would be no forgiveness of sin.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
S
This may help answer your question "What does the AOG teach about the "Blood of Christ?" If not you will need to be more specific and I will see if I can find the answer for you.
This is from "Systematic Theology" for first year Bible College students written by Stanley Horton:
His degrees included an M. Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, an S.T.M. from Harvard University, and a Th.D. from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He was an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God.
This is not an Official statement from the Assemblies of God on "The Blood of Christ" as I doubt that there is any such thing. The AOG does not make official documents on every heading found in a book on Systematic Theology other than an official statement about their core beliefs, foundational truths, and position papers published when a controversy arises in their organization that needs to be clarified. The following is simply an example from ONE of the text books used in their bible colleges, but this is not the only one that covers the subject of the atonement and not the only author used.
ASPECTS OF CHRIST’S SAVING WORK:
SACRIFICE
No one reading the Scriptures perceptively can escape the fact that sacrifice stands at the heart of redemption, both in the Old and New Testaments. The imagery of a lamb or a kid slain as part of the saving, redeeming drama goes back to the Passover (Ex. 12:1–13). God would see the sprinkled blood and “pass over” those whom the blood shielded. When the Old Testament believer placed his hands on the sacrifice it conveyed more than identification (i.e., this is “my” sacrifice); it was a sacrificial substitute (i.e., this I sacrifice in my place). Although we must not press the comparisons too far, this imagery is clearly transferred to Christ in the New Testament.54 John the Baptist introduced Him by announcing, “‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’” (John 1:29). In Acts 8, Philip applies Isaiah’s prophecy that the Servant would be “led like a lamb to the slaughter” (Isa. 53:7) to “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Paul refers to Christ as “our Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7). Peter says that we were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Pet. 1:19). Even those in the heavenlies praised and worshiped the Lion of the tribe of Judah as the slain Lamb (Rev. 5). Although some may cringe at the “blood and gore” associated with sacrifice, to remove it rips the heart out of the Bible. Closely related to the concept of sacrifice are the terms “propitiation” and “expiation,” which seek to answer the question, What effect does Christ’s sacrifice have? In the Old Testament these words reflect the word group of kipper and in the New that of hilaskomai. Both word groups mean “to appease,” “pacify,” or “conciliate” (i.e., to propitiate), and “to cover over with a price” or “atone for” (so as to remove sin or offense from one’s presence; i.e., to expiate). At times the decision to choose one meaning over the other relates more to a theological position than to basic word meaning. For example, one may make a theological decision concerning what the Bible means when it speaks of God’s wrath or anger. Does it require appeasing? Colin Brown refers to a “broad segment of biblical scholars who maintain that sacrifice in the Bible is concerned with expiation rather than propitiation.” G. C. Berkouwer refers to Adolph Harnack’s statement that orthodoxy confers on God the “horrible privilege” of not being in “a position to forgive out of love.” Leon Morris expresses the general consensus of evangelicals in saying, “The consistent Bible view is that the sin of man has incurred the wrath of God. That wrath is averted by Christ’s atoning offering. From this standpoint his saving work is properly called propitiation.” Neither the Septuagint nor the New Testament emptied the force of hilaskomai as to its meaning of propitiation.55 The Bible abandons the crudeness often associated with the word in pagan ritual. The Lord is not a malevolent and capricious deity whose nature remains so inscrutable that one never knows how He will act. But His wrath is real. However, the Bible teaches that God in His love, mercy, and faithfulness to His promises provided the means by which to satisfy His wrath. In the case of New Testament teaching, God not only provided the means, He also became the means. First John 4:10 says, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice [Gk. hilasmos] for our sins.”56
All the lexicons show that kipper and hilaskomai mean “propitiate” and “expiate.” The difference lies in how one views their meaning in the biblical materials that deal with atonement. If one accepts what the Bible says about God’s wrath, a possible solution presents itself. We could see the words as having a vertical and horizontal reference.
When the context focuses on the Atonement in relation to God, the words speak of propitiation. But they mean expiation when the focus is on us and our sin. We do not choose either/or but both/and. The historical and literary context determines the appropriate meaning.57 The question may arise, if He bore the penalty of our guilt by taking the wrath of God on himself and covering our sin, did He suffer the exact same consequences and punishment in kind and degree that all for whom He died would cumulatively suffer? After all, He was only one; we are many. As with so many such questions there can be no final answer. The Bible makes no such attempt. One should, however, remember that in the Cross we do not deal with a mechanical event or commercial transaction. The work of salvation moves on a spiritual plane, and no tidy analogies exist to explain it all.
Horton, Stanley M.. Systematic Theology: Revised Edition
This is from "Systematic Theology" for first year Bible College students written by Stanley Horton:
His degrees included an M. Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, an S.T.M. from Harvard University, and a Th.D. from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He was an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God.
This is not an Official statement from the Assemblies of God on "The Blood of Christ" as I doubt that there is any such thing. The AOG does not make official documents on every heading found in a book on Systematic Theology other than an official statement about their core beliefs, foundational truths, and position papers published when a controversy arises in their organization that needs to be clarified. The following is simply an example from ONE of the text books used in their bible colleges, but this is not the only one that covers the subject of the atonement and not the only author used.
ASPECTS OF CHRIST’S SAVING WORK:
SACRIFICE
No one reading the Scriptures perceptively can escape the fact that sacrifice stands at the heart of redemption, both in the Old and New Testaments. The imagery of a lamb or a kid slain as part of the saving, redeeming drama goes back to the Passover (Ex. 12:1–13). God would see the sprinkled blood and “pass over” those whom the blood shielded. When the Old Testament believer placed his hands on the sacrifice it conveyed more than identification (i.e., this is “my” sacrifice); it was a sacrificial substitute (i.e., this I sacrifice in my place). Although we must not press the comparisons too far, this imagery is clearly transferred to Christ in the New Testament.54 John the Baptist introduced Him by announcing, “‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’” (John 1:29). In Acts 8, Philip applies Isaiah’s prophecy that the Servant would be “led like a lamb to the slaughter” (Isa. 53:7) to “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Paul refers to Christ as “our Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7). Peter says that we were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Pet. 1:19). Even those in the heavenlies praised and worshiped the Lion of the tribe of Judah as the slain Lamb (Rev. 5). Although some may cringe at the “blood and gore” associated with sacrifice, to remove it rips the heart out of the Bible. Closely related to the concept of sacrifice are the terms “propitiation” and “expiation,” which seek to answer the question, What effect does Christ’s sacrifice have? In the Old Testament these words reflect the word group of kipper and in the New that of hilaskomai. Both word groups mean “to appease,” “pacify,” or “conciliate” (i.e., to propitiate), and “to cover over with a price” or “atone for” (so as to remove sin or offense from one’s presence; i.e., to expiate). At times the decision to choose one meaning over the other relates more to a theological position than to basic word meaning. For example, one may make a theological decision concerning what the Bible means when it speaks of God’s wrath or anger. Does it require appeasing? Colin Brown refers to a “broad segment of biblical scholars who maintain that sacrifice in the Bible is concerned with expiation rather than propitiation.” G. C. Berkouwer refers to Adolph Harnack’s statement that orthodoxy confers on God the “horrible privilege” of not being in “a position to forgive out of love.” Leon Morris expresses the general consensus of evangelicals in saying, “The consistent Bible view is that the sin of man has incurred the wrath of God. That wrath is averted by Christ’s atoning offering. From this standpoint his saving work is properly called propitiation.” Neither the Septuagint nor the New Testament emptied the force of hilaskomai as to its meaning of propitiation.55 The Bible abandons the crudeness often associated with the word in pagan ritual. The Lord is not a malevolent and capricious deity whose nature remains so inscrutable that one never knows how He will act. But His wrath is real. However, the Bible teaches that God in His love, mercy, and faithfulness to His promises provided the means by which to satisfy His wrath. In the case of New Testament teaching, God not only provided the means, He also became the means. First John 4:10 says, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice [Gk. hilasmos] for our sins.”56
All the lexicons show that kipper and hilaskomai mean “propitiate” and “expiate.” The difference lies in how one views their meaning in the biblical materials that deal with atonement. If one accepts what the Bible says about God’s wrath, a possible solution presents itself. We could see the words as having a vertical and horizontal reference.
When the context focuses on the Atonement in relation to God, the words speak of propitiation. But they mean expiation when the focus is on us and our sin. We do not choose either/or but both/and. The historical and literary context determines the appropriate meaning.57 The question may arise, if He bore the penalty of our guilt by taking the wrath of God on himself and covering our sin, did He suffer the exact same consequences and punishment in kind and degree that all for whom He died would cumulatively suffer? After all, He was only one; we are many. As with so many such questions there can be no final answer. The Bible makes no such attempt. One should, however, remember that in the Cross we do not deal with a mechanical event or commercial transaction. The work of salvation moves on a spiritual plane, and no tidy analogies exist to explain it all.
Horton, Stanley M.. Systematic Theology: Revised Edition
S
1 Tim 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
Being the wife of more than one man would disqualify her in the context of what Paul meant by "the wife of one man" here. And so this sheds light on intent of what "husband of one wife" meant. It is about not having more than one husband of one wife in either case it is about blamelessness. Above reproach. It is not a reproach to be single. Or a woman. (not to Godly people anyway, Pharisee is another story)
Being the wife of more than one man would disqualify her in the context of what Paul meant by "the wife of one man" here. And so this sheds light on intent of what "husband of one wife" meant. It is about not having more than one husband of one wife in either case it is about blamelessness. Above reproach. It is not a reproach to be single. Or a woman. (not to Godly people anyway, Pharisee is another story)
-
1
- Show all
Again you have only a surface knowledge of what is being presented. The widow would turn to her husbands family to raise up children in the name of her dead husband. Under thirty is relative to her ability to bear children.
The husband of one wife means married one time not having additional wives not divorcing and remarrying.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The husband of one wife means married one time not having additional wives not divorcing and remarrying.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
