Featured Is Complementarianism a Test of Fellowship?

Fair enough, I don't disagree that men and women can (and should) partner to go and do many aspects of ministry. I also believe women can serve on church staff but the role of senior pastor (and deacon) is left to men per the NT. I see women in various leadership roles in the NT.

I respect Dr Dever a lot. :thumbs:

 

Okay, then Phoebe was no deacon?

 

I didn't say that anything was a heresy. I stated, "One assuming that custom and OT practice that is verified in the NT (as is the place of men and women in the spiritual leading of the assembly) is (should be "as") an option and no longer authoritative to the modern church is at best misguided and at worse heretical."

It is up to the reader to discern to what level a teaching that women in the pastor/elder leadership role is not a violation of Scripture. Such a belief can range from at best misguided and at worse heretical.

There is not historical or archeological rendering that would weaken or cancel the instructions of the Scriptures on this topic. You might attempt some anachronistic rendering, but it would be laying a false misguided view or even be found as a heretical doctrinal statement.

You posted two wonderful Scriptures, but neither allows for women to be a pastor/elder in the local assembly.

 

I've never once argued for female pastors and elders.

 

You do offer yourself as a "soft complementarian" and therefore agree with the concept that men and women are of equal estate in whatever role they would claim God has called them.

The complementarian view in itself "soft or not" is a wrong premise from which to deduct accurate Scriptural conclusions.

The equality of Eden will not ever be until the Bride of Christ is presented to the Father. Until then, the woman is and never will be made to fit the station of spiritual authority over the assembly. Woman lost that standing when cast from Eden.

 

Complementarianism is not the "concept that men and women... God has called them." That is egalitarianism. You are getting your terms confused. Here is some help: http://www.theopedia.com/Complementarianism

 

My sincere apologies, you are correct.

I was placing the view of Egalitarianism into that of the Complementarian.

Perhaps, there are others on this thread who make the same mistake.

When I emerged from the cocoon of education, there wasn't the term "Complementarianism" and as most "isms" any new was considered negative.

I should not have responded without doing more into understanding that in truth there are now two views - one, the Egalitarianism in which I was appointing, and two, the view I have held without title for many decades which I now recognize as Complementarianism.

Thank you for the kind edification. :thumbs:

 

Pheobe was neither a deacon nor an apostle.

 

Clarification duly noted.

 

As much read as you are, I'm sure you're aware of the material arguing either side.

 

According to the language of Rom. 16:1, it sure seems like it. She is not just said to be a "servant" but a "servant of the church" specifically of a local church in Cenchrea. What is this if not the ministry of deacon? That coupled with the fact that deacons, not elders, mentioned "likewise women" in the qualifications. A case can easily be made for women deacons.

It also helps to consider what the exact purpose for the ministry is - service. This ministry is not leadership in the sense it is often practiced. So in that way, no gender role issue is addressed as it is for elders.

 

My sincere and humble apologies.

As GreekTim pointed out, I was applying attributes to a term I assumed and not having done the due research first to qualify my remarks. In doing so, I brought unwarranted rebuke to your views.

I indeed was applying Egalitarianism to that of Complimentarianism.

I have been reading and find that I myself am in fact quite complimentarian in the view of family and roles of the man/woman and family to the assembly.

I do very much appreciate the BB folks providing edification moments.

 

I'm pretty well versed in all the viewpoints on this one. :saint:

I see the other Greek fellow has added something, so feel free to read my reply there and reply.

 

Why does it sound like it? She isn't identified as "the" servant of the church. Phoebe is identified as "a" servant in the church of Cenchrea. Phoebe is really sketchy ground imho. Too often egalitarians (I'm not saying you are one) try to reach into this verse and make it say stuff it doesn't say. The stronger case is Junia (which I doubt was an apostle.)

The language used here, the Greek, isn't unique or special. Paul says she is part of a church and serves that church. There isn't unique language used to denote an office. In light of 1 Timothy 3:12 I don't think it is an easy case at all.

I understand that but again you've got to show me in the NT where women served in the office of deacon. I don't think that is an easy case to make.

 

First, not sure I see a difference between being "the servant" and "a servant" as it relates to proving she was or was not a deacon. However, neither the word "the" or the word "a" was used by Paul, so it is a moot point.

As far as it being sketchy ground, it is only sketchy b/c you have a tradition that says no in light of the fact that she is given the same term that Paul uses in other places. You might have a point except that the term is related to ministry in the local church. That is big.

As for "unique language used to denote an office"... that doesn't exist for any church office. Pastor, elder, overseer, deacon... these were all common words interpreted in the NT as offices of the church. So in light of that, using a common term for a church office makes the situation grey.

As for showing you in the NT of a woman deacon, I'd ask you to do the same with men. Name 1 male deacon in the NT. BTW... Acts 6 doesn't say they were deacons, so that can only count if PHoebe can count (since the actual term was used for her and restricted to a local church!). Maybe I'm forgetting one or two, but none come to my mind. Of course, referring to 1 Tim 3 only works if you mention the fact that both male and females are mentioned there.

BTW... this should probably be a separate thread so as not to continue this hijack.

 

These are the types of responses that cause so much conflict around here. Maybe he sees it as sketchy because he seriously studied the issue divorced from any tradition.

 

While I agree that it's not "The" but "a" diakonos, this does not negate the Phoebe claim.

But I do agree that the case of Junia is weightier. But if the Greek text is any indication, Junia was well-known "among the apostles." Now what "among the apostles" mean is indeed the rub.

But I'm not convinced one bit for the sort of grammar that justifies the rendering of the NET and the ESV.

It boils down to who really is reading Romans 16:1, doesn't it!

Yes, 1 Timothy 3:11 is problematic, and that's why I lean toward women deacons here.

 

Ok... I'll grant that was strong and apologize. Sorry, preachin.

 

complementarianism

That is a mighty big word!