Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

In this instance we have been addressing unmarried men as pastors.

You have never been able to present any scripture that says "a women are not to be pastors"
That is a conclusion that you have made. A "speculation" based on your interpretation of verses that you use to conclude that "women are not to be pastors" However your inability to present your case leaves you with a faulty foundation in the scriptures.

You have lost the debate on "the husband of one wife" and I have demonstrated conclusively that it means IF he is married he must be the husband of one wife not that he Must be married to be a pastor based on the fact that If he has kids they must be ruled well not that he MUST have kids to be a pastor.

Now you have the burden of proving with other
That response was a non response.

I am not sure why you engage at all if you are not willing to present a hermeneutic. It is edifying when someone with an opposing view presents their hermeneutic even if we still disagree there is usually some benefit to seeing why someone interprets the scriptures the way they do.

Your responses only demonstrate to the reading audience that you either do not posses the writing skills to present your hermeneutic or you don't really care what the truth of scriptures are and are comfortable with a belligerent approach to venting your opinions and calling it God's word and if someone does not agree they are not obeying God. That will not win a debate and will not advance the cause of discovering authorial intent of a particular scripture.

He would still be the husband of one wife even if the wife is deceased. It might not be wise for him to continue to pastor for many reasons.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

How can a single man be the husband of one wife? Just like a woman cannot be the husband of one wife.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Why do you seek to undermine the authority of Gods word?

Take Paul's advice to Timothy.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

I do not mean to be unkind but you are on a path that is unwise. Instead of seeking a hermeneutic that supports what you want from scripture take scripture and simply obey it. Some of the places you have been and some of the men you are reading are absolutely terrible and outright enemies of the truth.

Your desire to be a pastor is good but you need to wait on God and not plow ahead on your own.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Your opinion is that scripture teaches that "God has declared that women are not to be pastors"
However, you have failed to exhaustively present a reason why you think this is found in scripture. This is your responsibility in such a debate. And as far as I can tell you haven't really even tried.
Therefore your opinion has been rejected. And your opinion is not God.

Determining the intent of the Holy Spirit or authorial intent, is the objective of all sound exegesis. If you did not know that, it would explain a lot and maybe you can read a book on hermeneutics first and come back to the debate at a later time.

Your response "men making speculations about the intent of the Holy Spirit" suggests that you find this concept foreign. Maybe you don't understand how to present reasonings for interpretations. It is ok, many don't know how to do this. Not everyone is called to be a teacher. However every Christian should learn how to exegete the scriptures using a few basic rules:

1) What did the author intend the reader to understand when he wrote it? If he was standing here today and I could ask him "What did you meant by that? Some think you meant this, and some think you meant that? Which did you mean?" Would they say "I meant what ever you want it to mean?" Of course not. They would explain possibly in more verbose words what they mean so that you would understand clearly. Now we can't do that, they are not here, so we have to use other means to figure it out. For example
2) What was being discussed before and after this (immediate context)
3) What do other scriptures say about it
4) What are some of the possible interpretations presented by scholars throughout the history of the church
5) What did it mean to the people who heard it at the time based on their culture and familiarity with the subject.
6) Are there any issue with conveying the Greek word meanings into single English words and loosing some shades of meaning in the Greek
And several other types of rules we can use to determine authorial intent. Thinking that we do not need to discern authorial intent is a "faulty foundation in the scriptures" issue that would need to be resolved before you will ever be able to interpret scriptures correctly.

Belligerence of ones opinions being one what God declares and not supporting it with exegesis of a scripture is not one of the rules.

So your reasoning is that if he married again he would no longer be qualified to pastor because he has had more than one wife in his life time? I know that some interpret it that way. I disagree. I am fully persuaded that the scripture, (God's Word) and God is declaring that if a spouse dies that they are free to remarry is clear and therefore Paul would not be contradicting that statement and must mean if the man is married he must be married to one wife as in not a polygamist. This is sound interpretation and to reject it is to reject Gods word. See I can play that game also even though it is not very helpful in deciding what the scripture actually says.

It might be a little off topic, but I just wanted to say that even though the pastor is obviously an extremely important position in any church, there are SO many other opportunities for us (as women) to lead and teach. I know our church is always desperate for Sunday school teachers, especially with youth ages. There is also a huge need for help with childcare and other things. I just think it's important to keep in mind that there are so many important roles in the church and lots of opportunities for women to lead and set an example.

A single man isn't a husband which is why single men are not mentioned.


^Does the above mean that only dogs are permitted into the building?

Telling people that they have rebellious hearts, that they are rejecting Scripture, and otherwise demeaning them is NOT discussing. It's being a stubborn, self-righteous jackdonkey.

You have no business quoting 1 Timothy 2:23 when YOU are here debating what God's word means. Either DISCUSS (which you are NOT doing) or AVOID it by staying out of the thread!

And they do. The fact is that women who are completely surrendered to Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit empowered, gifted and called are going to fulfill their calling and not let religious pharisees stop them. This is the end of the thing. The eyes of the Lord search to and fro looking for someone who's heart is completely his so that he might show himself might on their behalf.

Hi,
It's not off topic at all.
I think it was discussed and there are those who claimed women couldn't teach anyone, anywhere in the church.

"just obey me and and have lots of babies"
Or something like that.

But then some decided as long as it's only children we could teach them.

Well I don't see a lot of men in my church stepping forward to teach the little ones, so if God wants us to wait on them to do that, we have a problem. lol

No He has not. Such a declaration simply does not exist in Scripture... anywhere.

You have rejected God's word when you presume to add to it.

There's no further argument that needs to be made.

This particular subject is not a stupid question. If you think that it is and you don't think it deserves a response in accordance with 2 Tim 2:23 then don't respond.

I agree with you on 2 Tim 2:23 and it may be that since you cannot present a better hermeneutic you are falling into the sin giving in to desire to hate, or vent. When that happens you should step away from the conversation. Learn how to present your hermeneutic without attacking the integrity of anyone who does not agree with your views. You have been told this many times but you keep doing it. If you can't do that you should avoid the discussion.

If you can contribute to understanding the verse in question with a good spirit to help people then do so. If you are just responding in a spirit of " Your stupid if you don't agree with me and you don't know God and can't understand the bible" then this is a sin of striving. You are in the flesh. You should indeed avoid the conversation.

The reason that the question comes up so often and will continue to do so is that people who study the bible realize that this classic interpretation that a woman cannot be a pastor or teach the bible when men are in the room is not found in the bible. They wonder where it came from and why it has persisted this far past the reformation.

Discussing the scriptures where the ideas came from is of great benefit to all those who engage in the discussion with a sincere heart to know what the bible really says.

I think what has become obvious to many people by bringing it up on CC over and over again through the years is that the scriptures that people had always thought taught that a woman can't be a pastor don't use those words. They realize that the verses used are not as verbose as their pastors and denominations lead them to believe.

When we have these discussions and people present their hermeneutics (rules of interpretations or methods of interpretations) then it is often discovered by those who are intellectually honest that there are no scriptures that say a woman cannot be a pastor of a church. It is a conclusion based on three main verses.

2 Tim 2:12 suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man
1 Cor 14:34 silent in the church and subjection to husbands
And the 1 Tim 3:2-12 and Titus 1:6 husband of one wife, ruling children well verses

When we discuss them many often realize that a tremendous amount of "speculation" has been added and read in between the lines and that these verses were not even dealing with the question. No one had asked the question. It was not part of the conversation.

Roger, you keep mentioning "Speculation" but many of us wonder why you don't notice that your own views include speculations that are not in the text.

Why is it that your speculations are not speculations but other peoples speculations are speculations. LOL

For example. 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

One explanation which I think matches the context is that he is saying that they should ask their husbands at home and not interrupt or cause disorder. I am speculating based on the text but nevertheless it is a conclusion based on logic and context.
You would accused me of Speculation.

You would say that he meant that women should not speak in the pulpit. This is also speculation on your part sense that is not what he said and you have made a conclusion that frankly is not even related to the context and ignores the reference about asking questions of their husbands as if it is not even connected to the admonition to be silent in the church. You have instead "wildly" speculated without any support from the text that Paul meant that women cannot speak publicly in the assembly though that is not the words that he said, you are putting words in his mouth. If Paul was referring to the women who were asking questions out of order then you have gone beyond what he intended to say.

Which meaning has more authority based on the context? That Paul was saying women cannot speak publicly in church or that he was saying that they should not disrupt the order with asking questions out of order?

Since there are two other instances in the immediate context of 1 Cor 14 where someone was told to be silent in the church because they were out of order, (tongues without an interpreter and prophesy when it was someone else's turn) then it is strong evidence that the women being told to be silent in the church and ask their husbands at home is in reference to them being out of order with their asking questions and not a rule against all women speaking publicly in the assembly. And also we know that they did prophesy publicly which is another reason we know that he was not banning women from speaking publicly since it is impossible to prophecy publicly without speaking.

Now therefore to "speculate" that Paul was saying that these women in the Corinthian church who were asking questions out of order were to remain silent in the church and ask their Husbands at home is a logical conclusion based on the entire context.

Your "speculation" however, that Paul was saying the women cannot speak in church is not supported by the context and contradictory to other scriptures such as women prophesying and praying publicly which they did without shame. This "speculation" that women cannot speak publicly in the church based on faulty interpretations has lead to a whole lot of wood hay and stubble being voiced in the name of "God said" when God never said such a thing.

We are both Speculating. Which speculation is supported by the context and the rest of the scriptures is what must be determined.

1 Tim 3:1 ¶ 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?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 ¶ Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

I've tried to be nice but frankly those who want women pastors are not going to be persuaded though they see the entirety of scripture. They make it their business to question the validity of scripture and work without end to pervert it's meaning for their own pleasure.

They all fail the blameless test provided here in 1 Timothy 3. Say what you will, mock and scoff if you will but God since Adam has place upon the man responsibilities that He does not lay upon the woman.

If you are in an apostate denomination you will receive only the teachings of apostate teachers. In that case it is wholly fitting that women be ordained as pastors in such affiliations. Most of them will ordain single men without hesitation. This is to their shame for they should know better.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

If the preceding 43 pages show you being "nice", you must be truly insufferable when you aren't nice.

The fact is that there is no male pronoun in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:1-10 except for "husband", and that is a restriction on polygamists, not females or unmarried men. You are certainly welcome to your own personal interpretation, but this page shows that you are unable to defend your position with either Scripture or sound reasoning.

Nobody here is questioning the validity of Scripture; however, many question the validity of your INTERPRETATION of Scripture. Perhaps you simply can't grasp the distinction. There are many who can't.

God does place responsibilities on men that He doesn't on women, but exclusivity in church leadership isn't among them.

All irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No one is mocking and scoffing you. Was it the emotes that I posted that gave you that impression? I am not scoffing you I am disagreeing with your interpretation. These scriptures do not say that a single man cannot be a pastor. You have misinterpreted them. I am sure of it because Paul gave you plenty of more information about his views on the spiritual benifit of undestracted devotion to Christ by remaining single is one so had the gift. Therefore adding what Paul has written in 1 Cor 7 we know that he would think it was to the pastors benefit to be single if he had the gift to do so. I will agree with Paul on this and not on your bad interpretation of 1 Tim 3 and I think that you are the one rejecting what Paul said in 1 Cor 7. Don't you.

It is nothing short of the root of the issue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I know what you want the scripture to say but that is not what it says. Pastors are to be married, the husband of one wife, not single men.

1 Cor 7 is addressing divorce which God never ordained. There are more distractions and temptations for single men that for married men.

For the cause of Christ
Roger