Women Preachers - could they be okay?

What?!? "For saying that I said something I did not say"

Did you read what I said? "Natural conclusion from your statement would be the converse"

Now you have accused me falselsy, as I did not say you said anything. Embarrased by that? I'm thinking not...

Going and making disciples of all nations is not going and setting up local churches. The churches will result FROM making disciples, but it is not "the" point of missions.

 

That was not what you said at first. Go back and read it. That was a later attempt at excusing your comment. You seem to be short on memory, short on arguments, and long on contention. That's not a good mix.

Secondly, it was not a natural conclusion. To the contrary, I explicitly stated what I meant, which means you were wrong to intepret it as you did.

Yes you did. You talked about "my reasoning" which you attempted to draw from what I said.

That's too bad.

You are incorrect. Going and making disciples is the establishing of local churches. You cannot make disciples without establishing a local church. It is the point of missions, to make disciples and organize them into local churches. It is not merely "making disciples" as if that could be done without the establishment of churches.

 

Here it is...
Amen. Pastor Larry's reasoning the mission field is the "local church" is quite "misguided".
Please show how you get from that statement I said that you said anything. You are not being entirely honest.

Which is not saying you said anything...what you have accused me of.

So what? I still did NOT say you said anything, what you stated. Feeling bad yet, PL?

It is, because it was in reference to you.

I can disciple someone in my home without starting a church. Your reasoning is flawed and one sided. Notice the bolded above, make disciples...AND...organize them into local churches. Local churches don't occur without making disciples first.

 

On what basis did you gain "my reasoning"? Is it not clear that you got it from what I said? There is no reasoning of mine that you know of apart from what I said.

Yes, I feel horrible. No one should do what you did. And I certainly don't enjoy being the one to confront you on this. I wish I didn't have to. But no one else has. The truth is that this could have been over two pages ago if you had simply said, "Oops, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying." But now your ego is apparently involved and you can't just back off and say it. Unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to be humble enough to say "Oops." I am not saying you did it intentionally. I think it was rather unintentional on your part. It was likely the result reading too quick and not thinking about it, couple with a desire to try to prove me wrong. It is still an easy thing to fix thought the last couple of pages of trying to defend the indefensible won't go away.

But you can't disciple them without them being a part of a local church because discipleship, by definition, includes faithful invovlement and participation in a local church.

Feel free to show how, and please use the NT. So far, you have not used it that I can recall.

They occur together. That's why the point of missions is local churches. It is how disciples are made.

A person cannot be a disciple of Christ if they are not a part of a local church, or working to organize a local church where there is not one.

 

This will be my last dialogue on this, as it is becoming quite childish. My reasonong was deducted from your statment. I never "said you said" anything. That is just not true, no matter how you try to make it so.

First, you are one to talk about egos. Second, you have not admitted you were wrong that "I said you said". I didn't. I supplied proof. All you keep supplying is this childish banter and hyperbolic statements (I feel horrible, blah blah blah...)

Now you are confusing being a disciple with becoming one. I would hope a pastor would know the difference. Does "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" occur after the church is formed, or prior? It's before.

...nor have you with your view. The Great Commision would suffice.

Since the church consists of believers, anywhere believers are discipleship follows. I have been discipled right here on the BB, and this is not my local church.

 

There are twice that many, namely four, mentioned in one verse in the NT.

Ed

 

Honestly, you should have just fixed this two pages ago. All you needed to say was, "Sorry, I misunderstood you." It would have been over. But now you have compounded it through some strange attempts at word games.

INteresting that you now admit that my words (what I said) was the basis for what you said I 'reasoned." And yet you want to play a word game between "reasoning" and "said." You are leaning on a distinction without a difference here.

I notice here that you have all of the sudden changed to speak of your reasoning, where previously you didn't say it was your reasoning; you said it was mine; and it wasn't.

Furthermore, the only place you could have gotten my reasoning from from was what I said, and trying to bail out of it by saying you didn't say I said it is stretching the mind of even the most gullible and naive. When you talk about "my reasoning" based on my words, you can't really go back and say you were attributing the position to what I said.

Again, this could have all been easily dealt with.

There isn't any hyperbole, and my ego is not involved in the least here. I was not wrong. I have shown clearly that my statement was supportable. You have not done so. And I do feel bad that this has continued when it didn't need to. But you decided to compound it by continuing in your mistatement.

Becoming a disciple is getting saved. Being a disciple is learning to follow Jesus. I do know the difference, and there really isn't much of one in practical terms since growing in discipleship is simply becoming more of what we are. The bottom line remains that one cannot be a disciple without being a part of a local church.

The baptizing occurs after the church is formed. Baptism is an ordinance of the church carried out by the church. Therefore, there has to be a church for baptism to take place, technically speaking. Baptism can be used to form the church when a group of converts are ready to form a church.

I have shown all throughout the NT that the purpose of missions in the NT was the planting of churches. I have appealed to you and GB for exceptions and you have yet to give one. I think all we need to do is read the book of Acts, note how many epistles were written to churches, or about leading churches, and note the constant drumbeat of the local church through the NT. The Great Commission was carried out through the establishment of local churches. It was not merely about seeing people saved, but about organizing them into local functioning bodies of Christ.

This is a bit simplistic. Discipleship can take place outside the local church, such as through believers from one locale discipling believers from another locale (such as sometimes happens here on the BB). There are believers who at times are not serious about discipleship as well. So overall, your statement is too simplistic to adequately deal with the NT teaching.

 

wow gentlemen, it is rather "inspiring" to see so many of you men arguing about where women belong....


Have you guys totally lost it or is there still an actual discussion going on?


I assume someone has pointed out that "preacher" and "pastor/elder/bishop" are NOT synonyms?

Women do indeed 'preach'.....I'd daresay I'm doing it right now......we are not to "pastor" over men in the church. I know a lady preacher who used to travel all over the country - she only spoke to women. I believe a similar ministry is much needed today in our churches, because there's some hard things that need to be said that many men don't feel comfortable saying to the women.

 

So what did they do as prophetesses? Is there any evidence that they used this gift of prophecy to preach or teach men in the church?

Tradition says that these women were preservers of history, or historians.

Consider this:
1. There is no NT evidence of women teaching men.
2. There is a clear NT proscription of women teaching or having authority over men; they are rather to keep silent.

Given these two things, we would have to conclude something like this, I would think:
1. These prophetesses were not teaching or exercising authority over men.
2. That the Bible is contradictory.
3. That these women were disobedient.

I am not sure there is a fourth option, and the inclusion in the biblical record points away from the third option. I would think that the evidence points to the first option, that these women were not teaching or having authority over men.

 

Wheree?

While I would not encourage travelling all over the country to do it, the practice of women teaching women is the pattern laid out in Titus 2. I think it is the pattern we should be pursuing.

To your first comment, I don't think the argument here is about where women belong, but rather about what the Bible teaches about the role of women and men in the church.

 

Pastor Larry, I should have added that she was an older single lady with no husband and children that she would have been leaving behind. And she travelled under the direction of her home pastor, also.

My first comment was because I read a page and a half of men just seeming to yell at each other......it was just a thought.

 

I don't have a great problem with that. My point about not travelling is that too many times people look outside the church for something special that they should be finding inside the church. There is no gift of "special speaker" in the NT. Itinerant ministry can be helpful, but I would rather see ministries built up from within by discipleship and ministry in the local church.

 

Frankly, I have no idea of what the daughters of Philip did, specifically, nor do I particularly care. I also have no desire to 'read a tradition', be it 'Baptist' or otherwise, back into a statement from Scripture, either. I was merely pointing out a 'generalization' that the "couple of 'prophetesses' in the Bible, mainly in the OT" bit was not an accurate statement, IMO.

BTW, and FTR, there is a fourth option, in your offered conclusions. That is that you have here offered a list of false choices. Since neither Scripture (nor I) particularly imply any of the three you offered (or the reverse of the first, as well) in the context, and since if these daughters "prophesied" they were obviously not being very "silent" [unless they were prophesying in 'sign language' - Uh, would that be another instance of the 'gift' of "languages", more or less corresponding to Isa. 28:11; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17, and I Cor. 12:10, 28? Was 'Dad' the one who did interpret?(I Cor. 12: 14: 27-28)],
I would suggest there may still be at least one or more other options, wouldn't you?

Ed

 

Luke 2:36-38
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

For shame! Bad churchlady, bad! Didn't she know her role as prophetess was merely to be an historian? Should have zipped her lip and let the men explain about the Messiah. That Anna needs to enroll in a remedial course from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:laugh:

 

I would argue that it would be pretty important, particularly in teh subject of women teaching.

Me either, but shouldn't we put it in the NT context to see what really might have been going on?

That's not really a fourth option as an answer to the question.

If women were forbidden by God from teaching men in the NT, should not we assume that that was practiced by these four prophetesses? I wouldn't argue they were silent. We still have to ask the question about what they were actually doing.

One of the problem in these kinds of discussions is that people just trot out proof texts without actually considering what the proof texts are talking about, and this is one of those cases.

I am open to it, as I said originally. I gave the ones I could think of. If you have another, please suggest it so we can consider it.

 

That was not my suggestion. That idea goes back to the very early years of the church. I cited here because some seem unaware that prophetesses apparently were used that way.

Or perhaps you need the remedial course since nothing Anna did would seem to contradict anything that I have said. "Speaking of him to them all" seems simply announcing that what they have been looking for for all these years has come. I see no reason to read more into the text than what it says.

It does not seem to me that Anna was teaching men in the church, or exercising authority over them.

It does seem that you went in search of a proof text without considering what the text might actually be saying.