Repsector of Persons/woman pastor

'Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. '

So, if Gal 3:28 allows for a female pastor, would it not also allow for Gay Marriage to remain consistent?

 

That's a huuuuuge stretch. The passage doesn't remotely address the issue of marriage, no matter how much one attempts to stretch the passage.

 

Neither does it address the issue of being a pastor. If it applys to one it would apply to the other.

 

That's true too. But to that point, the verses we cite in support of limiting the pastoral role to women aren't express, but implied as one possible interpretation.

 

Well the passage doesn't apply to church offices...it is about salvation and equal access to God through Christ's sacrifice.

To hermeneutically twist it to apply to pastoral office based on gender it is just another step to apply to a homos3xual pastor. When we corrupt the meaning of Scripture to accomplish our theological goals we open Scripture up to all kinds of interpretation.

 

..........Amen!!

 

Well, the Lord seemed to have a real problem with Jezebel teaching.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

God is not simply reproving Jezebel here for suducing his servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols, he is reproving her for teaching. And "that woman" is very strong. It also implies she is a false prophet "which calleth herself a prophetess".

How many of the apostles were women?

 

According to the disctinctive of the Preisthood of Every Believer, every woman who is a believer is an apostle.

 

It's been discussed in deep detail before in numerous other threads, but to recap what has already been said elsewhere:

1 Cor was a cultural point, directed to churches where men were in the congregation and women were outside. The women would call out to their husbands to find out what the preacher was saying. The admonition here was that those women should stop interrupting, keep quiet, and wait until they get home to ask their husbands for the preacher's teachings.

1 Tim was referring to a specific cultural problem of the day, whereby women were spreading occultic ideas between themselves, and then spreading that deception to the men in their household. That's why the parallel to Eve's deception was referenced.

1 Tim wasn't referring to what the gender of the leader must be, he's referring to the sexual purity of that leader (no miltuple wives, no flings on the side, etc). That's why the koine Greek emphasizes "one" wife, and doesn't just say "a" wife.

We shouldn't read these or any scriptural passages without their context, which is what is often done. Otherwise, we have people saying that a person can't be a pastor if he's single or widowed, or that deacons are allowed to be a little drunk (since it says "be not addicted to much wine).

Anyhoo, I know we differ on this interpretationally, but since the Baptist Dictinctives are big on autonomy and liberty, such a difference in interpretation is baptistically permissible, and there's no reason for Baptist to disfellowship for reasons such as these.

 

Your statement above has nothing to do with this text:

There is nothing in the text about what you say it's about. Rather God gives 2 reasons for his statement:
1. There is an order God wants followed: Adam was created first
2. Women are more easily deceived

The text is clear; we should not read suppositions into it. God could not be more clear here. This is universal and applicable today.

 

Correct thoughts Ann!

A little Scripture:

Judges 17:6. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Proverbs 12:15. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

 

Only if you disregards the context and cultural setting.

Are you saying that if the cultural context isn't mentioned in scripture, even though it would have been understood as such to the person to whom the letter was written, that the context is void?

??? That's a stretch.

If it were crystal clear, there would be no argument.

Off topic, but Paul wasn't married.

If you go by the letter, a widowed man is disqualified, because he doesn' thave a wife, he had a wife, and is therefore no longer a husband of one wife. Now, I don't concur, but that's a valid interpretation if one adheres to a literalist interpretation of the passage sans context.

I don't. I'm simply noting how a literalist interpretation of the passage sans context can be applied.

Then why bother being baptist if one doesn't adhere to the Baptist Distinctives? They're not there to pick and choose. That includes the Distinctives of Liberty and Autonomy.

I'm not saying a person should be involved in a church that had a woman pastor. I'm saying it's not necessary to break fellowship with such a church, and, that if we are to adhere to the Baptist Dictinctives, we must support each church's right of autonomy and liberty.

 

Actually 1 Timothy is referring that the leadrer must rule the houshold well and have demonstrated the ability to do so. The scripture also sets the father as the leader of the houshold, so how can one who is not the leader of the house demostrate the ability to do so?

 

That's my take on it as well, and a reason I believe a single pastor should not be allowed. They clearly have shown no ability to have a family, let alone rule one.

 

Webdog's application of the passage is admittedly the sole point of consistency on the topic, which should be commended, even if one does not concur completely with it.

To the OP topic, the "respector of persons" passage is not a prooftext for women in a pastoral role. I can't imagine that anyone would disagree with that.

 

Except that the "respector of persons" passage is not a prooftext for women in a pastoral role.