It is obvious you missed the whole thing. Read the verses. Read ALL the verses. Ask questions about them. Study them. </font>[/QUOTE]Based on these scriptures you listed, Major,The Bible supports Women preachers. I just cannot understand why the SBC has a problem with them.
I especially don't understand the hypocrisy of banning women preachers and then taking offerings in honor of Annie armstrong and Lottie Moon.
On the scripture of women remaining silent in the church if this is to be followed then they shoulddn't teach Sunday School or sing in a choir.
1,225 Ordained Southern Baptist Women?
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by J.R. Graves, Dec 12, 2003.
Page 2 of 4
-
-
a. We know that Phoebe in Rom. 16:1- 2 is called a diakonos
Rom. 16:1 2 - "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well."
She obviously was a servant in the church. Paul refers to her as a servant, a diakonos, the same word used for deacon. As we look at Paul's writings he does not emphasize the office, but rather the function.
b. In Hebrew there is no word for wife. The way it was expressed was "the woman of him." This very same expression is used in the NT. In Greek there is only one word for woman and it can mean either woman or wife.
Of the 215 uses of the word for woman, only one seems to be controversial in its translation.
In the text it will have the woman of him or the woman of a man's name to denote a wife
It is clear from the context that it is someone’s wife that is being talked about.
The word used ofr "Woman" is always clear from the context
c. In the Greek text there is not a definite article before women or at least a genitive pronoun following the word "woman". This would lead one to translate that word "women" and not "wives"
d. Another point is this: if Paul did mean wives of deacons, then why did he not include a corresponding set of qualifications for the wives of pastors?
e. There is plenty of evidence that the early church utilized women in ministry. There were women whose responsibility was to work with other women and children. They performed pastoral work with the sick and the poor and helped at baptism. From the earliest times deaconesses visited the sick, acted as door-keepers at the women's entrance to the church, kept order among church women, taught females in preparation for baptism and acted as sponsors for homeless children. They also carried official messages. There was a clearer line drawn between the sexes than there is today. Women deacons were not on the same level as men deacons. They could not teach and minister to mixed groups of people or men, and they were not ordained.
For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is loads of evidence of woman deacons in the church. However, the Western Roman Catholic church never had them. Whereas the eastern church did
Almost every country outside of the U.S. has women deacons in Baptist churches.
f. The emergence of deaconesses is unclear. But in the third and fourth centuries the office deaconess developed greatly. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. 'In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses. (Book X, XCVI, 8, 289)
In the typical chruch of that day and even in some today if the pastor wants to communicate with a woman in the congregation he will go through a deacon who speaks to the deaconess who speaks to the woman. The pastor never speaks with a woman directly at first. He goes through the chain first. If it something important he goes down the chain first. I know this is even practiced today in some of the countries nearby that area of the NT. In some of those countries the women sit on one side and the men on the other. I saw this even in the US among the elderly because so many women are without a husband and there are few men. -
gb, you totally dodged Doc's question. Where does it refer to an ordained woman elder or deacon?
Acts 6:2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve [deacon] tables. 3 ""Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;"
Acts 14:23 "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."
1 Tim 5:17 "Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine."
Titus 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you;"
James 5:14 "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
1. Deacons have no authority in the Bible--they are servants.
2. All local church authority is in the eldership.
3. Elders and deacons, by their qualifications given in Acts 6, 1 Tim and Titus must be male. The oft-quoted reference to Phoebe must therefore be a common generic use of "table servant."
4. Just because a woman is not in a position of authority does not mean she can't minister any more than a man. The overwhelming majority of men can't meet the qualifications for deacon or elder either.
5. What other churches in other lands do is irrelevant. The majority of people in the world don't worship Christ and follow Him either... -
-
The word is used only once--here. It means "assistant," or helper (ATR). It would have been so easy to call her "Presbuteros." Didn't happen.
-
I'm going to bed...Can't believe I stayed up this late!
-
Know of any women chaplains in a hospital or military that do not have that endorsement today?
Then what do you think the US is? It is about as close to pagan as you can get. How many revivals do you know of lately in the US and have you read about what God is doing in Africa? If you do look at other countries and the beliefs among Christians you might notice that we are very Anglicanized in our theology. Are we the only Baptists who have it right? You might consider those coutnries who had the gospel long before the US. Like perhaps about 1600 years before.
You argument stands about as well as show me a word in the NT about a toilet to show me that one should exist in people's homes. Show me in the NT where they drove cars to support driving a car. You do know that when the bathtub came out people thought they were filthy. But know of any homes in the US that don't have and use one.
If you used every practice they did in the NT you would not bathe but twice to six times a year. You might wash your clothes twice a year. You would stink just like they did too.
That kind of theology shows nothing of any value. In fact it goes counter to the historical context of scripture. To interpret any document (scripture or not) you must understand the historical context and much more to understand what is written.
Just because you do not find something in the NT does not mean there was not a practice concerning it.
The NT doesn't talk about driving a car to church. Does that mean we shouldn't either. The NT does not talk about a sewer system and an interstate system does that mean we should refuse to use them. Should you refuse to fly in a jet because it is not mentioned in scripture? Computers are not found in the NT either. So why do you use one? The things are endless.
The Bible says in John 21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
I was trying to show that there were practices among the people and shortly thereafter that were common practices that are not written directly about in scripture. We do not know what it meant to send someone out from a church. The Bible even mentions there were other things Jesus did. Was he not God?
So you can do what you wish with the information. But it does not negate the practice.
We know there were deaconesses early on and what their function was. I even gave you the reference. It was a secular refernce by the way. It makes mention that the Christians called them deaconesses.
Show me even the mention of ordination anywhere?
Certainly Spurgeon did not agree with the practice. His position was that it was man's idea nd that man could not add to what God had already done.
I believe ordination is a practice that is almost meaningless. If you want a job as a pastor then get ordained. It's that easy. I have seen it and I am sure you have. But then there are those who take it seriously. As far as I am concerned it is worthless because if a man is a leader it will show by the quality and number of his followers. Anybody that does not have followers is not a leader and should never be given any position anywhere until he proves himself by discipling others first. If he is not making disciples then he is not fit to be a leader. Implied in the qualifications of a pastor is the idea that he is a leader. But the qualifications are the kind of leader he is to be. If he is not leading already he is not a leader so don't make him one. If he is not making disciples he is not a pastor either. It's really that simple.
When I have interviewed with pastor search committees you ought to see them want to run and hide when I ask them about the disciples they are making. The numbers that are making disciples in our churches like Jesus did is almost zero. Too often they don't want someone who makes disciples and will train them so much as they want someone who will do it for them and make life easy for them. They are crippled and don't want to walk either. -
As for presbyteros, she would've been called that if that's what she was--she apparently wasn't. She was just a deacon; she didn't hold a high rank like the apostle Junia and her husband. -
Taufgesinnter, the thread slayer......
-
-
Where did you get that idea? I have never encountered any such thing in all my Greek Studies. So I am wondering what is your source of that information.
-
-
A.T. Robertson--"Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament.
Kenneth Wuest, "Word Studies in the Greek New Testament"
Rogers and Rogers, "Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament.
The Expositor's Greek New Testament
Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.
These are all standard Greek New Testament works. -
Where did you get that idea? I have never encountered any such thing in all my Greek Studies. So I am wondering what is your source of that information.
The word used for Phoebe in Rom 16:2 is prostasis, a noun derived from the verb prostaosso, meaning “to order validly,” pertaining to those who have the right to command" (p. 37). It asserts, as it is used, e.g., in Acts 10:33, authority and also dependence on God (p. :38); cf. C. Friedrich, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 8 (Grand Rapids, 1972) 37-39.
_________
Keep in mind that prostasis is a hapax legomena. It is closely related to the word proistemi ("manage, lead, rule"). In the Ecole Glossary, Keck notes that the word prostasis was a technical term for an Olympic trainer, which we might today render as "coach." (See Arvind Sharma, Women in World Religions, Albany: SUNY Press, 1987: 212-213, as well as Theological Studies 36, 1975: 660-687.) The related term, of which prostasis is a feminine derivative, appears in 1 Thess. 5:12 and 1 Tim. 3:4,5, and is Strong's number 4291.
I'm surprised you've never heard of this before. Young's Literal Translation of the Bible refers to her as "leader," and Montgomery's as "overseer." Barnes mentions the term was used by Greeks to refer to one who presided over an assembly, among other uses with which you're probably already acquainted. See also
G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity Vol 4, (Macquarie University, 1987), 243. -
If you use non-evangelical (which is to say non-believing) sources, then the results are not surprising.
-
The plain truth is that Jesus clearly appointed only men as apostles and that the Bible clearly only authorized men for formal leadership roles, and not even most men at that. The very specious nature of the few straws at which others grasp (all this discusstion over a word only used once in the NT) shows the weakness of the case for women elders, etc. -
-
As far as evangelical being synonymous with believing, while there are believers in the liturgical churches, those who deny all or most of the tenets of the faith could hardly be called believing.
And, that does not affect the number of sources I mentioned, who are in agreement, nor the basic premise, which is that Christ and the Apostles were careful to choose male leadership and write rules which perpetuated that. Had they desired otherwise, six female apostles would certainly have been available. -
The plain truth is that Jesus clearly appointed only men as apostles and that the Bible clearly only authorized men for formal leadership roles, and not even most men at that. The very specious nature of the few straws at which others grasp (all this discusstion over a word only used once in the NT) shows the weakness of the case for women elders, etc. </font>[/QUOTE]Evangelical scholarship is fairly well agreed that Phoebe was a patroness, but then the scholars argue divided among themselves over what that would have meant. Some evangelicals argue that it meant she was the president of the congregation and others against that view, while some on both sides admit at least that she was wealthy, of prominent social position, used those assets to protect the church, possibly even legally, and hosted the congregation in her own home. See Polythress, Grudem, Bilezikian, Groothuis, Kohlenberger, Fee, Kroeger, et al.
And yes, the apostle Junia was not appointed by Jesus, likewise Barnabas, in the same way that He appointed Levi or Bartholomew, true. But the Bible laid out the qualifications for a woman deacon at the same place as it did those for men deacons and bishops. It also plainly recognizes women not only as deacons and apostles, but prophets and evangelists. What is undeniable is that women in the early church were given a far greater place than the strictest fundamentalist groups today allow them.
But don't go to early church history for support of an apostolic tradition against ordaining women as bishops. Because once there, you'll find unsettling things about the early Christians' views regarding congregational autonomy, baptism, and liturgy. "Don't look for it, Taylor--you might not like what you find."
Page 2 of 4