Ron Phillips on Women Preachers.

Rather, you can back up your view with your interpretation of the word of God. Big difference.

 

Magnetic,

A woman can be learned and teach.....why does she have to teach men in order for it to count?

I know a lady evangelist who travels the country speaking only to women. I think her ministry is important. She doesn't even have the sound-booth guy stay in the room while she's preaching.

Sometimes ladies think they have to be preaching to men in order for it to be counted as a ministry.....

Teaching ladies is just as important, right?

 

Bapmom, I never said anything about it counting.

However, I believe a woman can impart truth to any audience, be it women, men, or a mix of genders. I do not limit which vessel God selects. Truth is truth.

Yes teaching ladies IS just as important, no doubt about it!

 

I am curious. Where does Phillips say that it is doctrinally sound for a woman to PASTOR. I believe he only addresses PREACHING.

 

Hi MP- I don't know you, but you do you understand what exegesis is? Have you heard of the principle, Scripture interprets Scripture?

I'm still waiting for a solid explanation of 1 Timothy 2:13-14 that would place verses 11-12 in the "culture-bound" category. It can't be done without rewritting the text to fit one's agenda.

It's not that women aren't capable of teaching or learning- in fact, they are encouraged to do both in Scripture. It is that the Word says men bear the responsibility of leadership over the flock (1 Tim 2, 3) and in the family (Ephesians 5). Different roles does not mean difference in worth or value.

 

Hi Hamricba,

Sure, I understand exegisis, and that Scripture interprets scripture. However, that doesn't negate the fact that it is still fallible human beings using Scripture to interpret Scripture. It is also easy to go beyond that and either end up with circular reasoning, or pulling text to support a presupposed position.

I have never said that differing roles mean a variance of worth. I just don't believe that some bubba with a 4th grade education should be teaching or pastoring a woman who, for example, has a ThD and a strong Christian testimony, because of his gender.

We must be careful not to project our own cultural or sociological biases onto God's word. Such was how slavery was seen as Biblical during the early-to-mid 19th Century in the U.S.

 

MP- I too would fear such a "Bubba"!

 

Wow MP.....=)

Wouldn't the "strong Christian testimony" outweigh any "4th grade education" he may have? Wouldn't that testimony of his at least earn him the respect to not be called a "Bubba"?

After having said that, I don't know any preachers who only have a 4th grade education, but I would not discount one if thats all he had of a structured education. Perhaps he is a self-learner and taught himself many valuable things....you don't know unless you hear him.

But beyond that as well...lol....I don't limit God either. If, however, GOD chooses to limit how He does things or whom He uses in specific roles, than so be it. Who am I to decide that God is limiting Himself too much?

 

Pastoring and preaching are completely different. Anyone who proclaims the Word of God can be considered as prophesying. I've heard many great women of the faith speak including Kay Arthur and Elizabeth Elliot. Elliott will not stand behind the pulpit on a Sunday morning so that people will not associate her with the office of pastor.

In my opinion, Kay Arthur is the most gifted woman today when it comes to being a student of the Word and clearly interpreting the Word.

 

You mean like a bias against "bubbas"?

Now, it's obvious that you're trying to impose a feminist belief on Scripture without CARING what Scripture on its own terms might teach. I know you don't care because you've said it's unknowable. Being unknowable, you necessarily base your opinions on something else. It seems the feminist zeitgeist is knowable enough.

I know you support women pastors. I know Paul didn't. These claims have the same basis; if one falls, the other does too.

 

Did the "bubba comment hit a raw nerve, A.J.?

It was used to make an extreme point for illustration. I certainly have no bias against the uneducated, however my point is that a good pastor, they do not make simply because of gender, when there could be a very qualified person who by your interpretation, would not be allowed to teach.

 

No. It merely marked you as a hypocrite.

Except that women, by definion, are not qualified. You see, "apt to teach" is a qualification, not the qualification. It's not college we're talking about, but the Church. The whole purpose of the Church is to please God (you do believe in God, right?). If God requires that women are not permitted to be in authority over men in the Church (and He does), then it would defeat the whole purpose of even having a church in the first place to let a woman pastor it. Whether God's will makes sense to us doesn't matter.

 

No. It merely marked you as a hypocrite.</font>[/QUOTE]So, we resort to ad hominems? Stick to the topic and quit with the childish name calling. As I pointed out, it was to make an illustration.

Except that women, by definion, are not qualified. You see, "apt to teach" is a qualification, not the qualification. It's not college we're talking about, but the Church. The whole purpose of the Church is to please God (you do believe in God, right?). If God requires that women are not permitted to be in authority over men in the Church (and He does), then it would defeat the whole purpose of even having a church in the first place to let a woman pastor it. Whether God's will makes sense to us doesn't matter. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you violate BB rules by implying that I do not believe in God. Stick to the subject!

So you think a woman is unqualified to teach? Interesting. Does your church have women teachers? By disqualifying over half of humanity, you are shortchanging yourself. Seems like even the bible has examples of females teaching. What about Deborah? What about Priscilla?

As to the office of pastor, there is disagreement, but apparently your narrow interpretation of the Bible puts limits on God that he never put on himself.

If you reply, stick to the debating points and drop the ad hominems. It weakens your arguments.

 

but Magnetic,

the discussion has always been regarding women PASTORS, not women teachers. We women, Im one of them, are not allowed to hold a spiritual, pastoral authority over men in the church. I would think that would include teaching an adult Sunday School class, and PASTORING.
But we have lady Sunday School teachers for the kids. We have lady bus captains who have men as workers on their bus. We have a lady in charge of our nursery ministry here, and even the preacher doesn't give someone permission to use that nursery without asking her first.....(that is him placing a limit on himself, btw, she would never take that authority upon herself.)

Thats just it, the Bible clearly says that the woman was created second, and so she shall not hold a spiritual authority and teaching position over the men of the church.

It really isn't limiting God, or any of the other things you've claimed, because GOD is the One who wrote the Bible, and HE is the One who put all that in there.

As a lady I have to just accept it and embrace the role that GOd HAS given me, which is just as vital though not as popular and not as noticeable.

 

Poles you initiated the ad hominem attacks with your bubba comment. AJ didn't disqualify anyone. God does, or do you think anyone can decide to preach or pastor simply because it is a "good" way to make a living?

 

As SeekingTruth pointed out, you resorted to ad hominems. Except that mine isn't a fallacious ad hominem, because it directly related to your method of interpretation.

Incidentally, if calling someone a hypocrite is childish, would you call the Lord Jesus Christ childish?

My point is you seem more worried that some people might not be able to take advantage of their job qualifications to the fullest (a very anthropocentric and very American concern) than you are with what might be pleasing to God. And a bit later in this reply, you worry whether I'm shortchanging myself. But am I the focus, or is God?

I'm not saying you're an atheist. I'm saying you need to attend more carefully to what your belief in God would imply.

A prophetess. If we had special revelation in our day, we would have prophetesses, because they had them in Bible times. The Holy Spirit spoke through them, and when they acted on their own (like Miriam) trouble started.

She and her husband took Apollos aside and straighted him out a little. Nothing about being in authority over men in the Church.

That's just bizarre. The Bible never limits God, because He wrote it, and He never changes His mind. You're the one who thinks God's word must conform to some modern idea of equal opportunity.

 

Has anyone wondered why the person representing what I believe to be the Apostate church, Babylon, is a woman?

 

The metaphor here is not so much the female idea, as it is the idea of prostitution. It so happens that there are far more female prostitutes than male.

 

The femaleness of the Whole of Babylon isn't incidental, but it doesn't reflect badly on women. Positively, actually, because it's a literary parallelism with the Bride of Christ. The Bride of Christ displays true femininity as created by God, but the Whore only displays a perversion of it caused by sin which will be done away with.

 

Debby and AI

I am glad there are some on this Forum who can see something in Revelation besides leaden literalism.