Women in the pastorate and pulpit...

I think that Beth Moore does teach men, as there are men in the SS class she teaches. Unless this has changed lately, I believe this is unbiblical if she's teaching the word of God to men.

 

Who said the church is using a worldly model or that it is derived from the social norm? I used examples both of the world AND the church to illistrate my point that the principles of leadership are the same and what I gave is established in scripture both vividly and consistently. The uniqueness and distinctivness of the biblical leadership and authority is 1. we don't have a hierarchy (ex. Catholic Church and Orthodox churches) and 2. our leading should be for the benifit of others and their spiritual growth, not our own self-serving ends. (thus not being a dictator)

Secondly, the model the world uses is based of the principle concepts of what we find in scripture. In fact you can see this in the God established religion of the OT with the high priest, priests (both of which were derived from Arrons sons) and the Levitical priesthood (which were from the Tribe of Levi). You also see it in the God constructed government of Israel. The Church follows the same principles set down by God already. There is a leadership of the body (known as pastor(s)/elder(s)), there is also leaders within the body (depending on its size), and there is the body. Though this speaks to authority (as does the husband and wife - though both have authority, only one is the head and is held responsible for that family/body) it does not represent who is supposedly more favored, special, or holy. In this we are all the same though God has established a distinction of authority with respect to offices of the Church and the functionality of ministries within the Church.

Funny, I have not stated anything to do with authority except that leadership does in fact have some but have not established in any manner to what extent nor the character that it is to be utilized. What I gave is found any theology book you can pick up which was nothing more than a short parphrase of it. However I will compromise and ask you to find one book on systematic theology that does not agree with the short statement I gave of what constitutes a Church body and I will look into it. I personally can give you quotes on what a Church is and it does from theology books such as - Millard Erickson Systematic Theology, C. Ryrie's Basic Theology, Moody's Bible Handbook, and A.W. Pinks Consice Theology. I can get most any others you wish to examine and correct me with.

I never addressed 'how' authority is excercised nor it's extent but 'that' leadership has it

Now this statement is a false one. If everyone has the same authority then there would be no leadership, no pastors/edlers. IF everyone has the same authority then everyone would be held accountable and judged by God regarding the growth of it's people and the keeping of biblical doctines. But scripture speaks contrary to this:

Now I also agree with you that we are to submit to one another which gives both balance and defintion to the leadership that they not abuse their authority because they are not the 'absolute' authority in the Church. They are to lead just as Christ did; He listened, had compassion on, and gave Himself for her.

Again, I believe you are incorrect regarding this. The position establishes the type of authority and thus the extent of that authority. You find this very principle in scripture and can be seen in the fact that your position in Christ gives you authority. The other aspet here you are incorrect on is that spirituality (spiritual maturity) is to be a fact of determining Church leaders more specifically a pastor. In the list of qualification for a pastor, one of them is that they are not to be a new christian or better a novice regarding the Word. IOW - they are to be spiritually mature. Though with the rest I agree, authority is not derived from how long one has been there, how smart one is.

Maybe you have a different definition of spirituality but as I understand the word it means spiritual maturity and that is just what you give above and it affirms what I just said.

But if we all have the same authority there is no leadership because the word in and of itself establishes a difference in authority. Again, what you have above I don't dispute nor have I indicated that I thought otherwise in any of my posts. Just becuase one is in a position whereby they have certain authority does not necessitate they are the absolute authority. That is why the Word of God is our 'Final" authority, as it trumps any Trump and we are subject to it, though a new convert or one of the 12 apostles.

Again, not correct, it is both. Since I agree with you on function I will simple illistrate scripturally that it is a position (which is also called an 'office')

Even a Deacon is so by through office and thus function:

 

PART 2

No and have illistrated otherwise but I can give you pages of bible verses if you like. I'm game

All throughout the NT. What part of what I said is NOT found in scripture with regard to the what constitutes the Church. I can give you loads of stuff just let me know, as I said I can pull from a great many theological books of different doctrinal positions that agree at least here on this point.

It is not refering to the Church but to prayer and Jesus was speaking to the disciples.

No problem :thumbs:

And who said otherwise - We are talking about what the passage that states "where two or three are gathered together in His name He is in the midst of them" - let us keep on track here :wink:

Notice if you will that in verse 18 Jesus is speaking NOT to the Church but to the disciples/apostles and verse 19 brings this point home even more so because it is dealing with PRAYER. Notice also in your own quote it states 'that if two of you will agree' - this isn't speaking about the Church because He speaks about two and not the Church.

Just getting together to sing does not make a church. Just because you get together to do a bible study (and sing in it) does not make that bible study a church anymore than getting together with other believers to go to concert. A church is defined in scripture, it has structure and just getting together does not in any manner biblcally constitute a church.

I didn't make any assumptions but was responding to your statement and question here:

I was not making an indictment against you but was answering you in general terms with regard to your question. The 'you' there is not personal but general since 'you' asked the question. Again, I was not speaking 'against' you but was answering 'your' question 'you' asked.

I didn't say you did, I was answering you question which did though. We do not and are to stand against those things which are in direct opposition to scripture regardless of what things on the outside appear to be doing.

Um.. who said anything about 'my standards', which is implying made up standards?
There is scripture which directly forbids women to preach and to usurp authority in relation to the congregation assembled together as one body. That isn't up for debate nor is the fact that a pastor must be the husband of one wife. Again not up for debate. These are not my made up standards as you imply though they are my standards are those of scripture but they are mine only be reception not conception.

Actaully no you haven't.

Great cause I have't professed perfection herein either. Yet I do stand with established theological view of who, and what the Church is.

There was nothing harsh in what I said to you and if you thought it was my appologies - I was explaining to you what I know in contrast to what you stated. As to being legalistic - that deals with adding works to the gospel message in order to obtain favor, and I didn't do anything close to that. :thumbs:

 

I don't agree that a woman can not teach a man outside of the Church gathering because there is nothing which establishes this specifically. The Timothy issue is from a Pastorial epistle which is relating to what was not to be done when they assembled as the Church. They didn't have sunday schoos back then (I'm sure you know this) but did study the word together in groups apart from the assembly teaching/preachings. Pricila and Aquilla both taught Paul things about the Word of God.

With regard to Beth Moore's "minstry" (her speaking and teaching ministry outside her church home) does not extend to going into churches and teaching and has the opportunity to teach men in an church gathering. I do know that Joyce M. does this.

 

Annsni...

You said, regarding your view of female non-leadership in the chrch...

According to you. But not according to everyone in the evangelical world.

This is from the Assemblies of God, about as far from "liberal" as Baptistis are. (and every bit as much "people of the book") They are as hard core concerning "scriptures alone" as any Baptist.

Here is an excerpt, with a link...

Hope that sheds some *light* on this issue.

http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/women.htm

 

Yes, it was the same way during Pauls time and he had to correct the issue then to. :thumbs:

They are not 'liberal' in the "political' sense but they take great 'liberty' in much of their doctinal stances to conform scripture to their view. I know I was one for many years And yes, they are 'people of the bood' but unfortunately they take the book quite often out of context.

In truth with respect to the research done - None whatsoever. Much of what they placed there is a lot double talk and misuse/abuse of terminology, misdirection and flat out deny certain things that are historically true as 'bias' translating. Just because a word has various meaning does not equate to pick and choose what you want it to say. Other parts is a complete misunderstanding about what the NT means with regard to leadership.

In short, if this was submitted in school to be graded on their research they would, without question, fail.

 

The context of I Timothy 2:12 is not talking about "in church" behavior, but behavior in general. Read chapter 2. Paul doesn't say "I will that men pray in church"; he says "every where". And surely Paul is not commending modest dress only at "church gatherings". Or in the following chapter, is it just behavior "during times of congregational assembly" that is to be considered?

Some apparently want to morph "the man" of verse 12 into "men at church".
"The man" is the woman's man (her husband). Paul has just commended modest behavior in women. He is illustrating that a woman should not lecture or subjugate her husband or be a loudmouth.

 

No. verse 11 specifically brings this into and before the Church. It is relating to a public assembly. Where by Paul bring 'back' into rememberance what he stated in the epistle of 1 Cor about women in the church are to 'learn in silence'. From that platform he goes into teaching and preaching in the public assembly of which - Paul 'continues' into chapter 3 about the only person who 'can' be in that position of a pastor/bishop who preaches and teaches to the church body.

Secondly, in looking at various commentaries (Barnes, Adam Clarke, Warren Wiersbe, Matthew Henry, J. Macarther, John Calvin, Wesley, Jamieson, Brown, And Fauset, ect..) I find all of them and many more, reflecting the exact same opinion I give - Paul is speaking in relation to the Church body publically, that a woman is not permitted to teach nor preach in the church assembly. And thus far I have found one that disagrees, not that one isn't out there but so far 18 commentaries agree, not including context. However they are permitted outside it as seen with respect to Paul in Acts.

 

Annsni...

In the quoted material they were not in the least "pushing aside" scripture.

They were demonstrating from the scriptures the clear examples of women in leadership roles.

Although they didnt adress it, many evangelicals feel that the "elect lady" in 2 John is the pastor of that "church", and "her children" are the members of that church. Of course, the word "children" is sometimes used in in the scriptures in reference to christians in the scriptures. ("children of God" etc) It is an entirely reasonable view.

The Assemblies of God use the same proper scriptural methods of interpretation as we Baptists do. This is not something they have conjured up out of thin air. It is there in the scriptures.


:godisgood:

 

Ann...

That is a falsehood.

I am not an AOG christian, so I had to go to their official site to get their position on it. Here it is...

They appear to hold to the standard view that others who advocate tongues for today hold. That being that if one has that gift they will recieve additional blessings as a result, but nothing about having to have that gift in order to be saved.

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/index.cfm


:godisgood:

 

But Allan, would you not agree that "teacher" in context in the Bible is teaching the word of God? This teaching doesn't have to be in a church "service" - teaching the word of God in a SS class is still teaching the word of God. If she is exegeting the word she is doing the same thing my pastor does in terms of "teaching" though she is not pastoring. I realize there are differing views on this - some think a woman teaching men is okay as long as the woman is not being a pastor over men. I myself would not be in a church that let women be SS teachers on a regular basis.

Where does the bible say this? Priscilla is only in Acts 18. I just read it and it does not say this at all. Also, Priscilla is only mentioned with Aquila and it does not say she taught alone. That is very different. Three mentions of Priscilla in one chapter in Acts do not a theology make!

She is still teaching men though not to the extent Joyce M. does.

 

Marcia...(regarding Beth Moore)

This man has been blessed by Beth Moore a few times when a caught her on TV.

I'm glad I didnt quickly turn away since she was a woman and miss out on those blessings. :thumbs:


:godisgood:

 

What does this have to do with pastoring? Beth Moore is not a pastor is she?

Getting "blessings" from Beth Moore isn't proof of anything. What does scripture teach? What examples do we see in scripture? That is where you need to be coming from to prove your point.

 

Allan...

Regarding the AOG material advocating women in positions of teaching (even men) and/or authority...

Double talk? Thats what I am unfortunetly hearing from my Baptist brethren on this thread.

"Yes, in the new covenant there is no more slave nor free, rich nor poor, nor male nor female, for we are all "one" in Christ."....

But not really. Women need to understand their subservient role and being "under" the man. And she must NEVER teach a man.

(as Pricilla did with Apollos...with Gods blessing. She was after all the LEADER of the ministry. Her husband was her helper.)

Thats fine. You are entitled to your preferences, likes and dislikes. I cant make anyone believe anything. All I can do is demonstrate my point from the scriptures, which I have done. I am a Baptist, but if truth is proven from brothers in the Assemblies of God, thats fine.

Scriptural truth is scriptural truth, irregardless of who the messenger is.

God bless.

 

Another portion of scripture taken out context based upon pretext for their proof text. Check the context of that statement - it regards salvation ONLY.

Like I said, asume and misuse, misdirection, ect..

Becoming emotional doesn't add anything to your argument. But I will agree that women women do have a roll and position, set forth by God Himself, and that does in fact concern them being under authority. Shall I quote to you the numerous places in the NT where this is established??

Your right, it was Apollos when I was thinking it was Paul.
As to God's blessing I agree. It was not a public gathering of the church and thus she could do such most especially with her husband there since Apollas was a single man and she was a married woman. But the scripture states they BOTH expounded the word of God to him. I have no problen with this.

Sorry, no such scriptural proof exists. I'd LOVE to see you back up the absurd accertion that her 'husband' was her helper. Come on, don't play coy either - lets see it. And please keep the speculative assumptions and imported imaginiations away. I would like to see where the scripture states what you said.

Sorry, you have not in any way done so. Do you know much about Greek and Hebrew languages? I do and can tell you that what you give is not, in the least accurate, not based only upon your web links accertion of 'our' supposed 'bias' (which is actually what you have in their revision) but upon historical usage, secular usages, context of the passages in conjuction with other passages of scriptures, and even histical writting 'about the early church'. ALL of which establish that women not can not hold a pastorate in the Church but historically (since the founding of the early church) have not done so.

Hey, I agree and have many good friends and family that are AoG. But you might also want to take notice of something - there are those (a small minority) in the AoG that do not believe in women pastors either

 

Allan...

Emotional??? What planet did that come from??? :wavey: There was nothing "emotional" about that comment, or any other comment in my posts on this topic. (or most other topics, for that matter.)

I'm a very "low key" guy.