Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

The Idea of Women Pastors is Unbiblical
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Where's Da Sheik's response to the scriptural basis for women ministers pasted above?? brotherjames
Nothing but crickets.......

Because he is misusing and twisting the Word to fit his biases, that's why.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/16/19 1:08 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Where's Da Sheik's response to the scriptural basis for women ministers pasted above?? Da Sheik
brotherjames wrote:
Nothing but crickets.......

Because he is misusing and twisting the Word to fit his biases, that's why.


I Tim 3 and Titus are the objective criteria for the appointment of deacons and overseers. Surely when Paul penned them he was aware of Joel’s prophecy and Galatians 3:28 (since he wrote it). Who’s twisting scripture BroJames? Show me the chapter and verse where Paul said the “wife of one husband” can be a bishop or a deacon.

While the crickets chirp, I’ll be waiting my friend.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
2/16/19 9:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post A denominational position .... Mat
A denominational position on women and ministry only has power over you if you submit/commit to the denomination. With such strong (and sincere) beliefs on both sides, it may be some will find themselves walking away from the COG (or any denomination they sincerely and strongly disagree with).

Gender roles inside and outside the church are being redefined and scriptures are be reexamined as to their application. Just as we (Christians) no longer hold marriage bonds to be life long, but rather subject to behavior and emotional changes, so it is with ministry.

As I would not (knowing) submit or serve under a homosexual, no matter how "ordained" and gifted the individual might be, it would come down to he goes or I go, and it will not be a quite exit. I would say the same for an unrepentant adulterer, or alcoholic, or gambler, and so on.

I would not submit to a man who is falls in to any of the various "heretical" positions regarding the nature of Christ or the Bible, as well. He may be the husband of one wife, living a "correct" lifestyle, ordained and gifted, but he would not meet my qualifications for who I would submit to.

While there are wonderful, called, gifted, ordained women (with no sin in their heart) who may one day fill the office of Bishop in the COG, if you can not submit to them as being over you, I believe you are free walk away.

I have quoted the old saying before, "when denied a vote, members vote with empty offering plates and pews." Some demand a position for women, but they can not demand you stay and submit.

As noted on the else where, the UMC is going me meet this month in an effort to resolve foundation issues. One of two things will happen, a fracture of the denomination, or a compromise of scripture in the name of unity. What would you do if you were UMC.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/17/19 9:24 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Perhaps you missed this brotherjames
we find the problem of translation in 1 Tim. 3:1-13 dealing with qualifications for ministry. While it is true that this passage deal primarily with male leadership, it is also true that it does so out of majority practices and expectations. Verse 11 also gives us some problems. The word translates wives here is the Greek �gunaikas� which can be translated as wives or women depending upon usage and the translator�s assumptions. One rendering gives us the impression of Deacon�s wives while the other rendering leads us to female spiritual leadership in the church. We know in reading Paul�s other epistles, especially Romans 16 that women in leadership roles were permitted. Romans 16:1-2 Phoebe is called a servant of the church. The Greek word diakonos translated here as servant. " I commend unto you Phoebe, a deaconess�.
Paul wrote to the church at Rome to the men as well as women "assist her".
Roman 16:3-4 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers", Roman 16:12 �salute Tryphena and. Tryphosa who labour in the Lord; salute Persis�. From the Greek we know these three are women. Rom. 16:7 Junia is a feminine name, she is called an Apostle.

In addition, we in the Assemblies of God have ordained women since our founding without harming anyone except for those misogynistic men. And, the AG has ordained women serving on our executive presbytery. So.... maybe you need to rethink your position.

This is not similar to the issue the UMC is debating this week as they consider ordained homosexuals. There is no wsy you can interpret scripture to come with that being ok. Women have served in lesdership.roles in the church for 2000 years. Read the didache or the history of the early church fathers. Deaconess es were common.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/17/19 2:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post I did not ... Mat
I did not overlook your post on women in positions of leadership, nor am I in opposition. Rather, as we expand our understanding of the issue we will/must reevaluate the relationship found in marriage. Perhaps male leadership in marriage is overstated when considering the scriptures in current cultural norms as opposed to the first century when the NT was written. Just as you have pointed out that male dominant scriptures about leadership positions must be modified by the culture it was written in.

Further, the need for marriage as a qualifier for leadership, male or female, may be a first century "add-on" which is not applicable to twenty-first century realities.

I think that's where the textual criticism would led us.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/17/19 10:43 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Sorry Mat brotherjames
But was actually was referring to Da Shiek's comment. Your comments make sense but it is a slippery slope when you start saying the culture has changed so let's change our standards to fit the culture. The Word of God is unchanging. However, sometimes the Word was written to deal with a specific problem in a specific church at a specific time and was not intended to be a lasting principle.
Some of Paul's statements regarding women are in fact dealing with problems in a certain church. i.e. women must keep silent in church. How can he say on the one hand women shouldn't prophesy with the head uncovered and then say women should keep silent? Because he was dealing with a choatic mess in the Corinthian worship service where everyone was talking, prophesying at the same time. Women were uneducated and confused so were asking questions of their husbands who were separated from them on the other side of the room. Ergo women keep silent. But now misogynist like Da Sheik try to use that verse as a club over women.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/18/19 9:34 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sorry Mat Dave Dorsey
brotherjames wrote:
But now misogynist like Da Sheik try to use that verse as a club over women.

This is gross. You have absolutely no basis for reading motive into his effort to interpret these scriptures, nor do you have any grounds for judging his heart. He's reading the scriptures as they're written. If you believe there is additional context that could broaden his understanding, such as comments about the original language, then that's a great conversation to have. But the way you are approaching this is un-Christlike and straight up mean.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/18/19 11:50 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post I don't expect to persuade you Brother James Da Sheik
brotherjames wrote:
But now misogynist like Da Sheik try to use that verse as a club over women.


I'm going to ignore the name-calling and just deal with the errors in your theology. Using Romans 16 as the basis for selecting deacons and elders is eisegesis at its finest. I Timothy and Titus are the pastoral epistles. They contain clear directives for the selection of elders. They are not exclusive to the immediate situation at Ephesus, they are prescriptive for the church age. Paul appeals to Creation, and the gender roles designed from the beginning.

The fact that Phoebe was a 'diakonos' does not mean she held the office of a deacon. The word is also translated as servant in other places. But you read into it what you want to see while ignoring the explicit directives in Timothy and Titus. This why we must rightly divide the Word of God. I wouldn't use this text to prove women pastors any more than I would use 3 John 1:2 to prove that every Christian will prosper and walk in perfect health always.

Futher, there is considerable debate as to whether Junia was male or female (the greek 'Junias' does not appear elsewhere in the NT). Regardless, the text does not say that Junia was an apostle. This is the epitome of wresting/twisting scripture to fit bias (the very thing you accuse me of). Notice how other translations render the same verse:

Rom 16:7  Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (ESV)

Romans 16:7 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
7 Greet Androni′cus and Ju′nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.


I have already dealt with Joel's prophecy and Galatians 3 so I won't rehash those arguments. These speak to the calling of God in salvation. Truly salvation and Holy Spirit baptism are available to all, regardless of gender or nationality. By the way, Peter who quoted Joel's prophecy on the Day of Pentecost is the very one who referred to the wife as the "weaker vessel" (not my words, but God's). Was Peter also a misogynist? Of course not! Neither am I . God designed men to be the leaders of their homes but not to lord over their wives. Anyone who would use the scriptures to put their wives in bondage is in error. We are to love our wives as Christ loved the church. I presume we all fail miserably, even though our intentions are noble.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
2/18/19 12:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dear Dave and Sheik brotherjames
Quote:
brotherjames wrote:
But now misogynist like Da Sheik try to use that verse as a club over women.

This is gross. You have absolutely no basis for reading motive into his effort to interpret these scriptures, nor do you have any grounds for judging his heart. He's reading the scriptures as they're written. If you believe there is additional context that could broaden his understanding, such as comments about the original language, then that's a great conversation to have. But the way you are approaching this is un-Christlike and straight up mean.


I disagree with both of your characterizations of my posts as mean or name calling. Well, it is a descriptive term i guess. Someone who puts women down, twists scripture to fit their opinion and then calls others who rightly divide the Word as examples of eisegesis at its finest is pretty clearly operating with a mysogninistic world view. I merely point out the obvious. It is not mean nor name calling merely an observation. That's how i got banned in the first place as i pointed out a certain admin' s worldview as cesessionist. That was my observation, opinion and might be incorrect but thats what i see.

As someone who has served as an official of the AG for many years, i have never been characterized as mean spirited but i am someone who holds some strong beliefs. One of them is that the church has for far too long taken Da Shieks interpretation of the scriptures about women in ministry to merely advance a chauvinistic world view. Women have served in the AG at every leadership level for over 100 years now. And while that is no proof of our position and interpretation of these scriptures, we have allowed this to occur because we believe this is the correct way to interpret these verses. We did not, nor do not, do it because the culture changed, we did it because it was right. It wasnt a very popular viewpoint in 1914 but we did it anyway because it was correct. You cannot read Joel 2 and Gal. & verses like there is no male or female in Christ etc and agree with them and then try to ignore them in Timothy and titus.

When we get to heaven. There will be no gender we will be equal. If God sees us that way now, how dare you try to change that? I guess I would call that mysogninistic. Maybe you think that's mean, I dont.


Last edited by brotherjames on 2/18/19 5:01 pm; edited 3 times in total
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/18/19 4:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I appreciate your statement that you did not mean your post as mean or name calling, and I believe you. That being said, that is how it comes across in my opinion. I appreciate that I may be completely in la la land with that interpretation, but please do me a favor and try to tone it down just a little bit. And if you ever see me doing the same, please call me on it. I think we can all sometimes come across as more aggressive than we intend. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/18/19 4:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
BTW, you were banned because you made me the target of one of the most vicious posts I have ever seen in over ten years on this forum. Not because you hold the opinion that I am a cessationist.

It's water under the bridge to me and I hope it is for you too. But you need to understand that you were not banned because you expressed an opinion, you were banned because of the way you expressed it. If you are saying you do not intend to come across that way, I believe you. But in my estimation (and in the estimation of the admins with whom I discussed the issue) that is how you did come across. So maybe it is all just a big misunderstanding -- I trust that it is. But if so, please understand that you come across differently than you intend.

You have a clean slate so far as I am concerned, both as an admin and as an individual. So please just take this post as a gentle suggestion as to how it can stay that way.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/18/19 5:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post If verses on women ... Mat
BrotherJames,

If verses on women, such as in Corinthians as to them being silent, are only appliable in that particluar setting/church/epistle, can we say such of all srcipture?

As in said, textual criticism can be a "slippery slope."

You mentioned the reason for the passage was the problem with the women of Corinth being confused, uneducated and questioning their husbands in public, but I'm not seeing textual support for this position. However, the implication is this was a issue limited to Corinth and the scriptures have no general spiritual value.

So what other verses in the NT don't have value in our current culture?

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/19/19 8:14 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Mat, brotherjames
To your question: how about these verses as examples of my point (and by the way you can find put how the Corinthian church et al held worship services by reading historical works from the didache and early church fathers)
1 Cor. 11: 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1 Tim. 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
1 tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities

I could go on and on but you get the point i think.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/19/19 8:41 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave, brotherjames
I won't answer you here but perhaps in the heat of the moment both of us were a bit over doing things. I actually don't recall what exactly i said as you deleted it so quickly and then banned me in an instant. Maybe a pm would have been appropriate to tell me i was over your line. I apologize for any offense but in fairness some of your comments didn't help matters. So we shall start over. I have been on this board in one iteration or snother for well over 10 years btw without being banned previously. Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/19/19 8:47 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Mat, Mat
brotherjames wrote:
To your question: how about these verses as examples of my point (and by the way you can find put how the Corinthian church et al held worship services by reading historical works from the didache and early church fathers)
1 Cor. 11: 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1 Tim. 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
1 tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities

I could go on and on but you get the point i think.


I see Divne truth that can be applied in each of these verses.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/19/19 9:25 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Dave, Dave Dorsey
brotherjames wrote:
So we shall start over.

Sounds good to me. Glad to have you here.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/19/19 9:45 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Carolyn Smith
This makes me miss Bonnie. She would have had intelligent words to share with a bit of zinger thrown in for fun. Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5903
2/21/19 9:20 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post I agree Carolyn brotherjames
Bonnie and I didn't always agree but she is sorely missed. I was banned during her passing but I read about it. I was truly sorry about her passing. She was as you said, intelligent, snarky and a godly woman. Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/22/19 9:34 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Opposite sides of the congregation famousflavius
It is my contention that men and women sat on opposite sides of the room in the culture of 1 Corintinhans 14. Women were in the habit of speaking loudly across the room to instruct their husbands on various topics. For example: “See I told you so Silas!” And “Why didnt you tell me that Aquilla?!”



I think gifted women can make wonderful Pastors and church leaders.
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2447
2/26/19 12:00 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Charisma Article (L) famousflavius
This Charisma article really surprised me.

https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/75421-what-does-the-bible-actually-say-about-women-as-pastors
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2447
3/5/19 11:53 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.