Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[Truth7t7]

Can someone give me a recap of the progress so far in the OP's question?

Can a woman be a pastor, simple

Gods words state (No) the Liberals say (Yes)

Women Are Excluded From Being A Bishop/Pastor/Leader

The Man That Takes Care Of The Church Of God.

A Married "Man", Ruling His Own House Well, He, His, Women Are Excluded, Simple

1 Timothy 3:1-5KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

 

[crossnote]

Can a woman be a pastor, simple

Gods words state (No) the Liberals say (Yes)

Women Are Excluded From Being A Bishop/Pastor/Leader

The Man That Takes Care Of The Church Of God.

A Married "Man", Ruling His Own House Well, He, His, Women Are Excluded, Simple

1 Timothy 3:1-5KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

So that's the recap? I take it many don't agree, otherwise why 42 pages of this back and forth between those who take seriously God's Word and those who like to mold it into pretzels?
Has any given an example of a woman pastor in Scripture? Or don't we believe the Scriptures anymore?

 

[Truth7t7]

So that's the recap? I take it many don't agree, otherwise why 42 pages of this back and forth between those who take seriously God's Word and those who like to mold it into pretzels?
Has any given an example of a woman pastor in Scripture? Or don't we believe the Scriptures anymore?

Liberals, that have entered the sheepfold, Gods words warn about the last days

60 million innocent unborn killed in the world annually(Abortion)

Homosexuality in same sex marriage

Women behind pulpits, denominations have given over to the LGBT rainbow flag movement, they are now in the church and behind pulpits

Adultery in the Church, many on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, marriages while their lawful spouse lives, not a word said, never talked about, taboo.

2 Timothy 3:1-5KJV
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

The Great Apostasy!

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4KJV
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

 

[Angela53510]

Can someone give me a recap of the progress so far in the OP's question?

I'm not mocking you, Crossnote, and I know you are sincere in your question. But after plowing through this dense thread, consisting mostly of people repeating themselves in KJV, no less, your question struck me as hilariously funny.

Keep up the good work.

PS Phoebe was a deacon. Priscilla and Aquila taught the message. In 2/3 incidents, Priscilla is mentioned first, which in that society meant she was the leader of the home group and teaching. Paul talked about fellow apostles like Junia, a woman, to say nothing of all the women who led other house groups.

The OT has leaders like Deborah who was a judge in Israel, and went into battle, and Jael who killed Sisera the general of the opposing army, thus ending the war. And the daughters of Zelophehad who were free to own land, an incredibly liberating action on God's part. Then there was Hannah, and prophetesses of God in the NT. I think considering what a strong male patriarchy the Jews were, these are enough cases to show that God was quite willing and able to make anything he wanted of women obeying and following him. God made no harsh and rigid rules about women in ministry, and even left prophecies that women would be leaders in the Christian church, (see Joel 2). It is men who think they have to make rigid rules against women, assuming somehow they have to defend God's righteousness. The fact is, God can look after himself quite well, and does not need 25 posts of the same portion of KJV Scripture, without adding anything new to point out something that proves his point!

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Pastors shepherd the flock and Jesus is our shepherd. I am not sure how you can miss that association?

Also, Jesus lowered Himself to be a man among men. Again... how do you miss this?

Jesus is called "The Son of Man" 185 times in the 4 gospels. (KJV)) I just did the count.

He referred to himself by that title frequently so you are quite correct. It's hard to miss.

 

[notuptome]

If you insist on this hermeneutic then you must insist that if his wife dies he has to resign.

For your argument is that..
1) the text says "husband of one wife" therefore he must be married.
And if his wife dies he is no longer married (as we know from the scriptures on marriage) and therefore he is no longer "the husband of one wife" and no longer qualifies to be a pastor.

And 2) you present as your argument that there are examples to the flock that the pastor is living while being married and these responsibilities contribute to his continuing qualifications of being a good leader. Therefore the wife having died he would no longer be living all these "marraige related duties" that you are saying is the reason for the rule that a pastor must be married. Therefore if his wife dies you would have him resign and replace with a pastor who is still married?

Your rule not mine and not God's. If he gets a divorce then he would be disqualified.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

You may never do so but if you were to prevent a man from pastoring a church because he was single you would be in error
All the things you have written in the post below would apply to you.



If history is not your subject it's time you owned up to that and allowed yourself to be corrected.
There are absolutely no scriptural grounds for preventing a single man from being a pastor. None.

If a single man is called of God to pastor a church why would you assume that God would not supply him with a wife? If have known single men who were called to pastor a church that prayed to God for a wife and in Gods time they received a wife from the Lord.

Gods word is true and it would be foolish to attempt to change it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Paul was clearly an overseer and pastor to all the churches. You point is invalid. Timothy was the pastor of the church at Ephesus and we have no record that he was married. He probably wasn't at this time. My guess is that he was mentored by Paul and followed his advice about being undistracted. All the best theologians reject the idea that a pastor must be single or must be married. Neither was ever mandated and was always a choice for the individual in the church. There is not even any support about "The One" as it is a choice which comes with both blessings and trouble in the flesh.

I assume that your definition of best theologians and mine would differ greatly. My second assumption would be that any assumptions you make would be greatly flawed given your lack of a sound foundation in the word of God.

Rather than speculate I'm just going to stick with what Gods word teaches on the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Gods word is true and it would be foolish to attempt to change it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Then I suggest you stop trying.

A plain reading of the text tells us that a Christian leader must not have multiple wives. It's more than obvious.
Paul was not writing to a modern congregation in the USA. He was writing to the people of his time.
I understood it even as a new Christian the first time I read it. It is beyond me how anyone could take it any other way.

You are adding to the meaning of the text.

 

[notuptome]

Then I suggest you stop trying.

A plain reading of the text tells us that a Christian leader must not have multiple wives. It's more than obvious.
Paul was not writing to a modern congregation in the USA. He was writing to the people of his time.
I understood it even as a new Christian the first time I read it. It is beyond me how anyone could take it any other way.

You are adding to the meaning of the text.

And that is just how the translators translated it. The intent was never to make provision for single men, women or divorced folks to take it upon themselves to be pastors of any church.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[crossnote]

Liberals, that have entered the sheepfold, Gods words warn about the last days

I wouldn't consider the outward visible Church the sheepfold...

John 10:1,7 ESV
[1] "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.
[7] So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

 

[crossnote]

I'm not mocking you, Crossnote, and I know you are sincere in your question. But after plowing through this dense thread, consisting mostly of people repeating themselves in KJV, no less, your question struck me as hilariously funny.

Keep up the good work.

PS Phoebe was a deacon. Priscilla and Aquila taught the message. In 2/3 incidents, Priscilla is mentioned first, which in that society meant she was the leader of the home group and teaching. Paul talked about fellow apostles like Junia, a woman, to say nothing of all the women who led other house groups.

The OT has leaders like Deborah who was a judge in Israel, and went into battle, and Jael who killed Sisera the general of the opposing army, thus ending the war. And the daughters of Zelophehad who were free to own land, an incredibly liberating action on God's part. Then there was Hannah, and prophetesses of God in the NT. I think considering what a strong male patriarchy the Jews were, these are enough cases to show that God was quite willing and able to make anything he wanted of women obeying and following him. God made no harsh and rigid rules about women in ministry, and even left prophecies that women would be leaders in the Christian church, (see Joel 2). It is men who think they have to make rigid rules against women, assuming somehow they have to defend God's righteousness. The fact is, God can look after himself quite well, and does not need 25 posts of the same portion of KJV Scripture, without adding anything new to point out something that proves his point!

Thanks Angela I was referring to the Church, not the Theocracy of Israel, and more specifically Bishops/overseers of the Church.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

And that is just how the translators translated it. The intent was never to make provision for single men, women or divorced folks to take it upon themselves to be pastors of any church.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

God calls whom he calls.

 

[Scribe]

I assume that your definition of best theologians and mine would differ greatly. My second assumption would be that any assumptions you make would be greatly flawed given your lack of a sound foundation in the word of God.

Rather than speculate I'm just going to stick with what Gods word teaches on the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You suspicions about my lack of foundation in scriptures might be your true feelings but this does not advance a correct interpretation of the verse at hand nor answer the question about why you think allowing "if" he has children is ok, but "if" he is married is not.

If the answer is no, then explain why hermeneutically it is sound logic to insist on "the husband of one wife" means he HAS to be married to be the husband of one wife, but then "having his children in subjection" does not mean he HAS to have children even though having children (plural) in subjection would require that he have children?

You cannot in all intellectual honesty allow for an interpretation of "IF" he has kids, and not allow for an interpretation of "IF" he is married.

If you believe that you may allow for "if" he has kids, but not "if" he is married then I am not sure why you do not recognize that as intellectually dishonest method of handling the Word of God. And you would be required to present your reasoning for this seemingly double standard in interpretation in the same passage here. I mean you would be required to present your reasoning if you were trying to teach someone why this is the correct interpretation or if you were expecting them to agree.


Talking about the benefits of being a good husband is not answering the question as that would apply to the benefits of being a good father also and so if that is your reason for insisting that he MUST be married then you would use it as your reason for insisting that he MUST have children.

You have effectually cornered yourself into a necessity of insisting 1) that if based on this text he must be married, then 2) based on this text he must have children and using this same hermeneutic he must have children plural since that is what the text implies.

You then must answer the question, "What if his wife dies?" "What if his children grow up and depart" "What if one of them as an adult stops following the Lord or becomes an unbeliever"

How far do you take Titus 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination

Does this mean while living at home or at anytime in their adult lives? Do you fire a pastor if it is found out that one of his adult children is living in sin or claims to not be a believer?

The answers to these questions is your attempt to identify authorial intent. How you go about it demonstrates your "foundation" in scripture as the entire body of scripture on a subject will come into play when answers such questions.

If you insist that he MUST have children in order to be consistent with he MUST be married, then you have to answer these further questions about the pastor who does not have children after having been married for some years and it is discovered that he or she is not able to have children. Does the church board then demand that they adopt or resign?

You may think it is a ridiculous question but if your church is insisting that he have children then how are you going to answer the question about infertility when it occurs. Do you wait until couples have children already before you allow them to pastor? I am assuming there is a group out there somewhere that does this very thing because of their interpretation of these verses. But what do you think Paul (and the Holy Spirit) intended by this command about subjected children? "IF" he has children or that he "MUST" have children?

Answer the questions showing your ability to interpret scripture with the rules of hermeneutics please, and not with your opinions about me or my foundation in scriptures or my devotion to obey the Word of God, as that does nothing to present the correct interpretation. Your feelings about me are irrelevant to discovering authorial intent.

 

[Dino246]

You suspicions about my lack of foundation in scriptures might be your true feelings but this does not advance a correct interpretation of the verse at hand nor answer the question about why you think allowing "if" he has children is ok, but "if" he is married is not.

If the answer is no, then explain why hermeneutically it is sound logic to insist on "the husband of one wife" means he HAS to be married to be the husband of one wife, but then "having his children in subjection" does not mean he HAS to have children even though having children (plural) in subjection would require that he have children?

You cannot in all intellectual honesty allow for an interpretation of "IF" he has kids, and not allow for an interpretation of "IF" he is married.

If you believe that you may allow for "if" he has kids, but not "if" he is married then I am not sure why you do not recognize that as intellectually dishonest method of handling the Word of God. And you would be required to present your reasoning for this seemingly double standard in interpretation in the same passage here. I mean you would be required to present your reasoning if you were trying to teach someone why this is the correct interpretation or if you were expecting them to agree.


Talking about the benefits of being a good husband is not answering the question as that would apply to the benefits of being a good father also and so if that is your reason for insisting that he MUST be married then you would use it as your reason for insisting that he MUST have children.

You have effectually cornered yourself into a necessity of insisting 1) that if based on this text he must be married, then 2) based on this text he must have children and using this same hermeneutic he must have children plural since that is what the text implies.

You then must answer the question, "What if his wife dies?" "What if his children grow up and depart" "What if one of them as an adult stops following the Lord or becomes an unbeliever"

How far do you take Titus 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination

Does this mean while living at home or at anytime in their adult lives? Do you fire a pastor if it is found out that one of his adult children is living in sin or claims to not be a believer?

The answers to these questions is your attempt to identify authorial intent. How you go about it demonstrates your "foundation" in scripture as the entire body of scripture on a subject will come into play when answers such questions.

If you insist that he MUST have children in order to be consistent with he MUST be married, then you have to answer these further questions about the pastor who does not have children after having been married for some years and it is discovered that he or she is not able to have children. Does the church board then demand that they adopt or resign?

You may think it is a ridiculous question but if your church is insisting that he have children then how are you going to answer the question about infertility when it occurs. Do you wait until couples have children already before you allow them to pastor? I am assuming there is a group out there somewhere that does this very thing because of their interpretation of these verses. But what do you think Paul (and the Holy Spirit) intended by this command about subjected children? "IF" he has children or that he "MUST" have children?

Answer the questions showing your ability to interpret scripture with the rules of hermeneutics please, and not with your opinions about me or my foundation in scriptures or my devotion to obey the Word of God, as that does nothing to present the correct interpretation. Your feelings about me are irrelevant to discovering authorial intent.

Sadly, some people prefer to sacrifice integrity (intellectual and personal) when it impinges on their prejudices.

 

[notuptome]

God calls whom he calls.

God does not call or act in contradiction to His word.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

You suspicions about my lack of foundation in scriptures might be your true feelings but this does not advance a correct interpretation of the verse at hand nor answer the question about why you think allowing "if" he has children is ok, but "if" he is married is not.

If the answer is no, then explain why hermeneutically it is sound logic to insist on "the husband of one wife" means he HAS to be married to be the husband of one wife, but then "having his children in subjection" does not mean he HAS to have children even though having children (plural) in subjection would require that he have children?

You cannot in all intellectual honesty allow for an interpretation of "IF" he has kids, and not allow for an interpretation of "IF" he is married.

If you believe that you may allow for "if" he has kids, but not "if" he is married then I am not sure why you do not recognize that as intellectually dishonest method of handling the Word of God. And you would be required to present your reasoning for this seemingly double standard in interpretation in the same passage here. I mean you would be required to present your reasoning if you were trying to teach someone why this is the correct interpretation or if you were expecting them to agree.


Talking about the benefits of being a good husband is not answering the question as that would apply to the benefits of being a good father also and so if that is your reason for insisting that he MUST be married then you would use it as your reason for insisting that he MUST have children.

You have effectually cornered yourself into a necessity of insisting 1) that if based on this text he must be married, then 2) based on this text he must have children and using this same hermeneutic he must have children plural since that is what the text implies.

You then must answer the question, "What if his wife dies?" "What if his children grow up and depart" "What if one of them as an adult stops following the Lord or becomes an unbeliever"

How far do you take Titus 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination

Does this mean while living at home or at anytime in their adult lives? Do you fire a pastor if it is found out that one of his adult children is living in sin or claims to not be a believer?

The answers to these questions is your attempt to identify authorial intent. How you go about it demonstrates your "foundation" in scripture as the entire body of scripture on a subject will come into play when answers such questions.

If you insist that he MUST have children in order to be consistent with he MUST be married, then you have to answer these further questions about the pastor who does not have children after having been married for some years and it is discovered that he or she is not able to have children. Does the church board then demand that they adopt or resign?

You may think it is a ridiculous question but if your church is insisting that he have children then how are you going to answer the question about infertility when it occurs. Do you wait until couples have children already before you allow them to pastor? I am assuming there is a group out there somewhere that does this very thing because of their interpretation of these verses. But what do you think Paul (and the Holy Spirit) intended by this command about subjected children? "IF" he has children or that he "MUST" have children?

Answer the questions showing your ability to interpret scripture with the rules of hermeneutics please, and not with your opinions about me or my foundation in scriptures or my devotion to obey the Word of God, as that does nothing to present the correct interpretation. Your feelings about me are irrelevant to discovering authorial intent.

As long as you struggle against Gods word and make your endless speculations you cannot arrive at the peace you need. The only question that must be addressed is why do you not receive Gods word and act accordingly.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

As long as you struggle against Gods word and make your endless speculations you cannot arrive at the peace you need. The only question that must be addressed is why do you not receive Gods word and act accordingly.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What a cowardly reply.
There was nothing speculative about that post.

You are simply unable to answer by the standards of your own rulebook.
You keep making judgmental statements about the hearts & motives of others toward God which are not helping your argument at all

 

[notuptome]

What a cowardly reply.
There was nothing speculative about that post.

You are simply unable to answer by the standards of your own rulebook.
You keep making judgmental statements about the hearts & motives of others toward God which are not helping your argument at all

God has declared that women are not to be pastors. Many here have rejected God's declaration. There is no further argument to be made. All we have is men making speculations about the intent of the Holy Spirit when the translators translated the Greek into English.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Scribe]

Your rule not mine and not God's. If he gets a divorce then he would be disqualified.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Who said anything about a divorce? You quoted my post so I know you did not make a mistake replying to someone else. My post mentions a pastor who's wife dies. Can he continue to pastor? Your reply does not make sense. I will assume you were answering someone else. If you were dodging it didn't work. Can a widower keep pastoring according to your interpretation? It is not a speculation. It happens every day somewhere in the world.