Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[awelight]

Your interpretation is not Scripture. Get that through your head.

I stand firm in my interpretations. Along with many great teachers of their day, who saw the same Biblical Truths as I have over 30 years of Biblical study. Men like Albert Barnes, John Gill, Arthur W. Pink, Charles Spurgeon, W. E. Best, etc.... While we may not agree on every point of Scripture, we stand together in general accord. These men taught and wrote between the 1700's up too the 2000's.

If I can't get it through my head, they obviously couldn't either. They and I are on the same wave link - frim in the defense of God's Truth as presented in Scripture.

One should not learn solely from other men or churches but one will flock together when that one hears what is being taught as the voice of the Lord. (John 10:4,5). I don't know what voice you are listening too but I fear it is not the right one. This saddens me.

 

[awelight]

Lol are you serious?
What is the percentage of female preachers in church, even nowadays? Are you saying that churches that don't have female preachers have no problems? There's neeeeever anything unsavory going on and male preachers can't be false teachers right? I see also church was doing awesome doing the Middle ages when it was just men, lots of murder and torture, very salted and enlightened. You're worse than your forefather Adam the grand accuser and not owning up to his error.

An argument based purely on humanism and not Scripture. When God lays down Commandments and Ordinances for His people to follow, He does this for our good. God does not ask if we agree with them nor does He put them up for a vote. He simply says, "IF you LOVE me KEEP my commandments."

Don't go to history to try to prove your point because you are not asking the right question. The question is: If the churches of old and new were/are guilty of atrocities, then were/are these churches true churches of the Lord Jesus Christ? The answer would be NO! These churches were/are never true churches and either had the "candlestick removed" or never had a "candlestick". (Rev. Ch. 1-3).

 

[SoulWeaver]

An argument based purely on humanism and not Scripture. When God lays down Commandments and Ordinances for His people to follow, He does this for our good. God does not ask if we agree with them nor does He put them up for a vote. He simply says, "IF you LOVE me KEEP my commandments."

Don't go to history to try to prove your point because you are not asking the right question. The question is: If the churches of old and new were/are guilty of atrocities, then were/are these churches true churches of the Lord Jesus Christ? The answer would be NO! These churches were/are never true churches and either had the "candlestick removed" or never had a "candlestick". (Rev. Ch. 1-3).

Except that it is his interpretation, not scripture. A lot of people disagree with him. And I hate when people elevate their understanding to the level of Scripture itself. Don't do that.

Lol based on humanism. It's not humanism unless you choose to play dumb and reduce sin and error to social aspect only. It's you who is making this absurd reduction. Various errors of all-male pastorship over the ages until right now have spiritual and doctrinal aspects besides how it socially influenced the world. Roger made an assertion that "church is in chaos because women". Whatever. Males are still leading in almost all churches so his argument is ridiculous

 

[awelight]

Those verses were applicable in their own day as well. The same false teachings orchestrated by the same demons. Forbid to marry, command to marry, respect toward angels with head coverings, sabbath keeping, diets, on and on.

The catholics taught crazy things using the scriptures for over 1000 years that did not mean it was proper interpretations. Imagine how many times the reformers were told that their interpretations could not be correct because they were not popular until recent times.

You really didn't answer my question. You sort of drove around it with the use of the Catholic church. Don't even get me started on that one. The question was, did they all have it wrong?

 

[Dino246]

I stand firm in my interpretations. Along with many great teachers of their day, who saw the same Biblical Truths as I have over 30 years of Biblical study. Men like Albert Barnes, John Gill, Arthur W. Pink, Charles Spurgeon, W. E. Best, etc.... While we may not agree on every point of Scripture, we stand together in general accord. These men taught and wrote between the 1700's up too the 2000's.

If I can't get it through my head, they obviously couldn't either. They and I are on the same wave link - frim in the defense of God's Truth as presented in Scripture.

One should not learn solely from other men or churches but one will flock together when that one hears what is being taught as the voice of the Lord. (John 10:4,5). I don't know what voice you are listening too but I fear it is not the right one. This saddens me.

You and Roger have been reading the same playbook: "If you don't agree with me, you don't agree with God".

Unadulterated hogwash.

Apparently neither of you can comprehend that someone can have a different view than you and still be a Christian. Your loss.

 

[awelight]

Except that it is his interpretation, not scripture. A lot of people disagree with him. And I hate when people elevate their understanding to the level of Scripture itself. Don't do that.

Lol based on humanism. It's not humanism unless you choose to play dumb and reduce sin and error to social aspect only. It's you who is making this absurd reduction. Various errors of all-male pastorship over the ages until right now have spiritual and doctrinal aspects besides how it socially influenced the world. Roger made an assertion that "church is in chaos because women". Whatever. Males are still leading in almost all churches so his argument is ridiculous

Well I would not agree that churches are in chaos because of women. I will have to say that ordaining women as preachers is not Biblical. It is expressly forbidden and the Ordnances and Commandments of God do not have time limits. They are as eternal as God Himself, unless fulfilled by God... such as Christ did with the Sacrificial and Ceremonial aspects of the Law.

We know that "ALL" of Scripture is for our edification and reproof, not just the parts we like. God doesn't care whether women agree with His prohibition or not. Just as He doesn't care whether men agree are not. What He says, He expects to be obeyed and there are grave consequences for not obeying. I could never figure out why women, who do not agree with this prohibition, risk God's displeasure over an issue that really doesn't touch them personally.

I will go so far as to say, a church led by a woman preacher is no assembly of God. Christ is not present nor is the Holy Spirit. God will not be apart of a church that is being led by one in violation of Scripture.

 

[SoulWeaver]

You and Roger have been reading the same playbook: "If you don't agree with me, you don't agree with God".

How could we brainwash people effectively if the playbook was different. We need to threaten and scare people into believing our understanding is the correct one. Their eternal existence is doomed if they disagree with MY interpretation. That'll put them in order!
I used to believe what they believe, and it only took the ever so slow trickling of facts and passage of time while doing things their way to realize how religiously brainwashed I was and it was not by the Spirit. Unfortunately, cult-ural traditions from Fertile Crescent continue on as if they were Word of God.

 

[SoulWeaver]

Well I would not agree that churches are in chaos because of women. I will have to say that ordaining women as preachers is not Biblical. It is expressly forbidden and the Ordnances and Commandments of God do not have time limits. They are as eternal as God Himself, unless fulfilled by God... such as Christ did with the Sacrificial and Ceremonial aspects of the Law.

We know that "ALL" of Scripture is for our edification and reproof, not just the parts we like. God doesn't care whether women agree with His prohibition or not. Just as He doesn't care whether men agree are not. What He says, He expects to be obeyed and there are grave consequences for not obeying. I could never figure out why women, who do not agree with this prohibition, risk God's displeasure over an issue that really doesn't touch them personally.

I will go so far as to say, a church led by a woman preacher is no assembly of God. Christ is not present nor is the Holy Spirit. God will not be apart of a church that is being led by one in violation of Scripture.

So a church having a woman preacher, means according to you, NOBODY in this church has an ounce of the Holy Spirit, none of them was born again they just think God saved them because they follow Jesus, but they are all actually unbelievers that will go to hell.
Or maybe your worldview allows that some of them actually have the Holy Spirit, He's holding on and not unsealing those select few, until they can move to another church with an XY chromosome pastor?
Please give me more of that fearmongering, spoken like a real cult.

 

[awelight]

You and Roger have been reading the same playbook: "If you don't agree with me, you don't agree with God".

Unadulterated hogwash.

Apparently neither of you can comprehend that someone can have a different view than you and still be a Christian. Your loss.

Oh I certainly agree that someone can have a different view and in some cases this might not be a serious mistake, on either side of that view. However, in other cases, this may be an indication of bad fruit and bad fruit does not grow on a good tree. It depends on the subject matter under discussion. Example, One can believe in Christ and call themselves a Christian but do they have the proper view of whom Christ is? Believing in a non-Biblical Christ will get you nowhere near Salvation.

The mark of true Christianity, is not to have differing views but to learn from one another and thru the study of the Scriptures, to come to a singleness of mind.

Act 2:44-46 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,

This means true Christians have a willingness to learn and be taught. Only Goats buck-up against the truth when it s taught. Show me where I am wrong from the Scriptures and I will give earnest heed to those Scriptures, however, not to humanistic argument are supposition.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I could never figure out why women, who do not agree with this prohibition, risk God's displeasure over an issue that really doesn't touch them personally.

It's because this same creator God gave us common sense! (to both men and women thank you Jesus )
Thus He speaks to us in the Bible, "let us reason".

 

[awelight]

So a church having a woman preacher, means according to you, NOBODY in this church has an ounce of the Holy Spirit, none of them was born again they just think God saved them because they follow Jesus, but they are all actually unbelievers that will go to hell.
Or maybe your worldview allows that some of them actually have the Holy Spirit, He's holding on and not unsealing those select few, until they can move to another church with an XY chromosome pastor?
Please give me more of that fearmongering, spoken like a real cult.

Yes, as I said this would be a dead church. That does not mean that a few sheep might not be caught in this temporary situation but the Spirit will enlighten them, through the Scriptures and they will come out from there.

You make some nice sounding statements but where are the Scriptures to back them up? You dislike my statements on women being prohibited from preaching or leading a church but they are Scriptural:

1Co 14:34-36 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.

1Ti 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

These are plain simple words, even a blind person can understand. They need no interpretation, unless you are trying to explain them away. Or does this part of the Scripture apply to you? -- What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? --

 

[Scribe]

You really didn't answer my question. You sort of drove around it with the use of the Catholic church. Don't even get me started on that one. The question was, did they all have it wrong?

At this time in my studies I believe that ALL THOSE authors who think that Paul was demanding that an elder or deacon be married and have children made a mistake in identifying authorial intent. All of them. Everyone of them made a mistake.

I believe Paul's intent was to say that 'being married to more than one wife' or 'having unruly children' was scandalous.

 

[SoulWeaver]

Yes, as I said this would be a dead church. That does not mean that a few sheep might not be caught in this temporary situation but the Spirit will enlighten them, through the Scriptures and they will come out from there.

You make some nice sounding statements but where are the Scriptures to back them up? You dislike my statements on women being prohibited from preaching or leading a church but they are Scriptural:

1Co 14:34-36 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.

1Ti 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

These are plain simple words, even a blind person can understand. They need no interpretation, unless you are trying to explain them away. Or does this part of the Scripture apply to you? -- What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? --

Ok so you believe MOST of the people in the church, are not actually born again and have zero Holy Spirit (just falsely believe so), if the pastor happens to be a woman, and those few who are born again are soon to move to a male pastored church otherwise they have never been saved, thanks for clarifying. You are not hearing yourself? Just listen to yourself! I don't even need to argue a point... As to what you're bringing up a lot of people countered already, this is an old subject on the forum. Also, what do you do if the husband approves of his wife speaking because she's speaking wise things? Is it usurping authority if you have approval? Do you kick these husbands out of the church as well?

 

[Scribe]

Well I would not agree that churches are in chaos because of women. I will have to say that ordaining women as preachers is not Biblical. It is expressly forbidden and the Ordnances and Commandments of God do not have time limits. They are as eternal as God Himself, unless fulfilled by God... such as Christ did with the Sacrificial and Ceremonial aspects of the Law.

We know that "ALL" of Scripture is for our edification and reproof, not just the parts we like. God doesn't care whether women agree with His prohibition or not. Just as He doesn't care whether men agree are not. What He says, He expects to be obeyed and there are grave consequences for not obeying. I could never figure out why women, who do not agree with this prohibition, risk God's displeasure over an issue that really doesn't touch them personally.

I will go so far as to say, a church led by a woman preacher is no assembly of God. Christ is not present nor is the Holy Spirit. God will not be apart of a church that is being led by one in violation of Scripture.

Because many of those women believe it would be risking God's displeasure to ban women from ministry of the Word of God.
And we don't understand why others don't see that.

It comes down to interpretation of scripture which is effected by your theological view of God and your relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. We wonder how anyone filled with the Holy Spirit would forbid a woman from preaching, and prophesying. Or pastoring if she believed she was following God.

If a woman plants a church and people come and get saved who are you to say that God will be displeased? I think he would be more displeased with your comment than with the woman pastor getting people saved and planting a church where there was none there before.

Use the common sense God gave you. God did not create a rule banning women from preaching the word when men are present and which they are just supposed to obey because he said so. That is not what happened. Your explanation of it should be a red flag that you made a mistake in identifying authorial intent. The Holy Spirit and Paul never said that.

You would have God displeased with a female planting a church in a place where one was needed and getting people saved by the hundreds and declare it is all condemned by God who bans women from doing such things. You would try to make people think that your God is one who on the day of judgment would say to the woman pastor who planted a church and was instrumental in hundreds being saved in a community as a result that her works were wood, hay and stubble because she was a woman. We don't serve the same God if that is your view of yours.

 

[Scribe]

I stand firm in my interpretations. Along with many great teachers of their day, who saw the same Biblical Truths as I have over 30 years of Biblical study. Men like Albert Barnes, John Gill, Arthur W. Pink, Charles Spurgeon, W. E. Best, etc.... While we may not agree on every point of Scripture, we stand together in general accord. These men taught and wrote between the 1700's up too the 2000's.

If I can't get it through my head, they obviously couldn't either. They and I are on the same wave link - frim in the defense of God's Truth as presented in Scripture.

One should not learn solely from other men or churches but one will flock together when that one hears what is being taught as the voice of the Lord. (John 10:4,5). I don't know what voice you are listening too but I fear it is not the right one. This saddens me.

I am going out on a limb here but I am going to guess that if you do a survey that you will find that more authors of commentaries will say that Paul was meaning that "if" an elder is married he must have one wife. Not two or more. Not that he MUST be married.
So using your logic if the majority of commentaries agree that he did not mean the elder or deacon MUST be married and MUST have children then shouldn't that suggest to you that you might be wrong.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I am going out on a limb here but I am going to guess that if you do a survey that you will find that more authors of commentaries will say that Paul was meaning that "if" an elder is married he must have one wife. Not two or more. Not that he MUST be married.
So using your logic if the majority of commentaries agree that he did not mean the elder or deacon MUST be married and MUST have children then shouldn't that suggest to you that you might be wrong.

Why are we even arguing this, when the proof is right under our noses. Wasn't apostle Paul single? Was he not an overseer to many churches? If Paul writing all these letters to the churches wasn't an overseer or elder to them, who was? And if the people want to say "he was an apostle not a pastor" or in whatever hair splitting they want to engage, apostle Peter was also unmarried (the Spirit would never rip families apart like that, sending fathers and husbands away from their family), and Jesus told Peter "feed my sheep". A person that pastures the sheep is definitely a PASTOR. So there.

 

[Scribe]

Why are we even arguing this, when the proof is right under our noses. Wasn't apostle Paul single? Was he not an overseer to many churches? If Paul writing all these letters to the churches wasn't an overseer or elder to them, who was? And if the people want to say "he was an apostle not a pastor" or in whatever hair splitting they want to engage, apostle Peter was also unmarried (the Spirit would never rip families apart like that, sending fathers and husbands away from their family), and Jesus told Peter "feed my sheep". A person that pastures the sheep is definitely a PASTOR. So there.

We do it because we are bored. LOL

 

[notuptome]

Why are we even arguing this, when the proof is right under our noses. Wasn't apostle Paul single? Was he not an overseer to many churches? If Paul writing all these letters to the churches wasn't an overseer or elder to them, who was? And if the people want to say "he was an apostle not a pastor" or in whatever hair splitting they want to engage, apostle Peter was also unmarried (the Spirit would never rip families apart like that, sending fathers and husbands away from their family), and Jesus told Peter "feed my sheep". A person that pastures the sheep is definitely a PASTOR. So there.

Correct I do not find any of the apostles pastoring churches. God called them as apostles not pastors. God has the authority to accomplish His will.

Now if a single man desires to be an evangelist that is a good thing. No women are evangelists.

Now if one pastors a church without the call of God then all the admonitions from scripture need not apply.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[awelight]

Ok so you believe MOST of the people in the church, are not actually born again and have zero Holy Spirit (just falsely believe so), if the pastor happens to be a woman, and those few who are born again are soon to move to a male pastored church otherwise they have never been saved, thanks for clarifying. You are not hearing yourself? Just listen to yourself! I don't even need to argue a point... As to what you're bringing up a lot of people countered already, this is an old subject on the forum. Also, what do you do if the husband approves of his wife speaking because she's speaking wise things? Is it usurping authority if you have approval? Do you kick these husbands out of the church as well?

Your conclusions on my post are nothing short of ridiculous. They show gross feminine bias, in your tone and conclusions. You still have shown no Scripture to prove a point other than the one made. I maybe the sole voice of reason here but that bothers me little. Let all that hate these commandments pile on together. Your last questions deserve no answer.

 

[Dino246]

Oh I certainly agree that someone can have a different view and in some cases this might not be a serious mistake, on either side of that view. However, in other cases, this may be an indication of bad fruit and bad fruit does not grow on a good tree. It depends on the subject matter under discussion. Example, One can believe in Christ and call themselves a Christian but do they have the proper view of whom Christ is? Believing in a non-Biblical Christ will get you nowhere near Salvation.

The mark of true Christianity, is not to have differing views but to learn from one another and thru the study of the Scriptures, to come to a singleness of mind.

Act 2:44-46 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,

This means true Christians have a willingness to learn and be taught. Only Goats buck-up against the truth when it s taught. Show me where I am wrong from the Scriptures and I will give earnest heed to those Scriptures, however, not to humanistic argument are supposition.

"Only goats..." well there's some more demeaning and dismissive language. Fail.