Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is ordination of women to be Pastors [Overseer/Bishop] orthodox?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I have to choose a practical doctrinal issue for my New Testament class this semester. I'm thinking it'll be this one. It all hinges upon whether Paul's commandment was meant to be universal or not, and I'll be honest, good arguments have been advanced for both sides.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #32
      If the woman has only one wife, and has ruled her house well, then she can be a pastor. Those other women Catholicity has mentioned were not pastors. There is no "argument" for the other side.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        And you want to get into that, eh?

        So why would Paul, the great Church Planter, say
        1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

        Key words underlined.

        This is the way I understand it. There was a heresy at the time that taught women were superior. They taught that Eve was created first, and that they were to take their "rightful" authority, which was in actuality an act of usurping the teachers there. The part about silence, BOTH men and women were to remain silent while being taught.

        For more about this, I recommend here.

        Use the search function for 1 Timothy, then scroll up a bit, unless you want to read the whole thing. Which will take a while. jpholding has a short video about it, I might post that here in the thread once I find it. It works as a good summary for what's in that article, but is more detailed than what I wrote IIRC.

        ETA: Couldn't find the video I remembered, but I did find this article on the same topic from Holding.

        http://www.tektonics.org/film/paulhatesgirls.html
        Last edited by Cerebrum123; 02-23-2015, 04:54 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          I think when we really have to WORK to find support for a position, it's probably not a good position. When we want to base policy on "maybe" and "possibly" and "it COULD have been".....

          and Young's Literal Translation renders...
          "and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness"

          "usurp" is not a good translation in light of the way we understand "usurp".

          "to usurp authority over" is the King James English translation of αὐθεντέω, which is "one who with his own hand kills another or himself, one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, an absolute master, to govern, exercise dominion over one"

          Darby: but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
          HCSB: I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.
          NIV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;fn she must be quiet.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I
            and Young's Literal Translation renders...
            "and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness"
            Husband?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I think when we really have to WORK to find support for a position, it's probably not a good position. When we want to base policy on "maybe" and "possibly" and "it COULD have been".....

              and Young's Literal Translation renders...
              "and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness"

              "usurp" is not a good translation in light of the way we understand "usurp".

              "to usurp authority over" is the King James English translation of αὐθεντέω, which is "one who with his own hand kills another or himself, one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, an absolute master, to govern, exercise dominion over one"

              Darby: but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
              HCSB: I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.
              NIV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;fn she must be quiet.
              Yeah, well, the very Greek word you give the definition shows that it's being used in a negative context. It's also not the word used for authority elsewhere. In this case I think that more work than going to several different English translations needs to be done.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                Husband?
                That's how Young translated it, yes. Some, therefore, argue that this does not mean a woman can't be pastor, but that she can not rule her husband. Not HER husband, but "a husband", or head of house.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                  If the woman has only one wife, and has ruled her house well, then she can be a pastor. Those other women Catholicity has mentioned were not pastors. There is no "argument" for the other side.
                  You do realize same-sex marriage is recognized by the majority of US states by now, right? Be careful what you wish for.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Yeah, well, the very Greek word you give the definition shows that it's being used in a negative context. It's also not the word used for authority elsewhere. In this case I think that more work than going to several different English translations needs to be done.
                    If you want to be in a Church pastored by a woman, that's your choice. I believe the overall context - including the biblical principle that men teach men and women teach women - does not support women pastors. Women in ministry roles? Absolutely.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      That's how Young translated it, yes. Some, therefore, argue that this does not mean a woman can't be pastor, but that she can not rule her husband.
                      It does make much more sense of the childbearing statement that immediately follows.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        It does make much more sense of the childbearing statement that immediately follows.
                        And needs to be considered in the overall context, including the previous verses.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          If you want to be in a Church pastored by a woman, that's your choice.
                          I never said anything about "wanting to be in a Church pastored by a woman".

                          I believe the overall context - including the biblical principle that men teach men and women teach women - does not support women pastors.
                          And, that Biblical principle is where exactly? What about the social context of the time 1 Timothy was written, and to whom? Doesn't that count for something? What about Jesus, and Paul teaching women? Did they break with this "biblical principle"? Something seems off here.

                          Acts 16:13 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.


                          John 4:8-10New International Version (NIV)

                          8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

                          9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

                          10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

                          Luke 10:38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. 40 But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”

                          41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one.[f] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

                          Let's not forget that spiritually, there is neither male nor female in Christ.

                          Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

                          This is not to say that I disagree that the husband should be the leader of the household.

                          Women in ministry roles? Absolutely.
                          So, women apostles and prophets are fine, but no women pastors? Doesn't that sounds a little strange to you?

                          Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

                          Romans 16:2-4New International Version (NIV)

                          2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.

                          3 Greet Priscilla[a] and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          It does make much more sense of the childbearing statement that immediately follows.
                          Actually it fits better with the Gnostic heresy being taught that childbirth was evil, because it trapped more people in evil material bodies.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            And needs to be considered in the overall context, including the previous verses.
                            Yup, like the ongoing goddess worship at Ephesus, and it's Gnostic leanings.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              This is something on which I will gladly share my opinion, based on my understanding of the Scriptures, but I won't really argue against women in the ministry. I personally don't believe women should be pastors, but there are plenty of places of service where they can be pastors.

                              One would have to discount the biblical principle of the man being the head of the home in order to justify a woman being the head of a church. But I understand that's not a big problem for a lot of people.

                              I've known quite a few female priests and pastors in my time, having served on many area ministerial associations, and I treat them with courtesy and respect.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                This is something on which I will gladly share my opinion, based on my understanding of the Scriptures, but I won't really argue against women in the ministry. I personally don't believe women should be pastors, but there are plenty of places of service where they can be pastors.
                                Well, there's a difference between airing your opinion, and saying there's a "biblical principle" against it, especially when the "biblical principle" you previously claimed was "violated" by both Jesus and Paul.

                                One would have to discount the biblical principle of the man being the head of the home in order to justify a woman being the head of a church. But I understand that's not a big problem for a lot of people.
                                Why would you have to discount that principle?

                                I've known quite a few female priests and pastors in my time, having served on many area ministerial associations, and I treat them with courtesy and respect.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X