Women Pastors

Exactly man, good for you!



There are ZERO ways God's Word provides for women to be pastors, deacons or church leaders.

Of course women can assist in the ministry in a supporting role, but they cannot the pastor or church leader according to the New Testament.




What's foolish is going beyond what is written in God's Word for doctrine which is how folks become deceived by the devil.




Folks who foolishly look outside of God's Word for doctrine wouldn't know one way or the other.



More foolish stuff from outside of God's Word, I'll pass as will those that accept God's Word above the wisdom of men.

The scriptures speak for themselves.




There are ZERO ways God's Word provides for women to be pastors, deacons or church leaders.





There are ZERO ways God's Word provides for women to be pastors, deacons or church leaders.





He did humble me and taught me to go by what His Word says, not by the darkened wisdom of man which says women can be in authority over men in the church when God's Word clearly says they cannot.

The scripture is so easy to understand on this one has to get help to misunderstand it which of course the enemy is happy to assist with




That's not what Jesus said!

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Jesus taught the Gospel of the Kingdom




True Christian men are NOT cross dressers or transgender

Or, Paul was being led by the Holy Spirit and wrote what the Lord wanted to be written!

Rather than speculating we could always believe that.

Just a quick question


But is the word pastor actually in the bible.

Is it not ministers,

And I was just wondering can a care worker, a brother or a sister minister and minister Gods word.


And is the church now not Gods people rather than a building.


So I'm asking could my wife minister to me if I was lacking, and would that not be classed as ministering to the church seeing as I am his church also.

[/QUOTE] Right… and believe that the Lord was contradicting Himself when He inspired Galatians 3:28. That’s a better solution for sure.

He is my Husband

I would say the fact that Adam did not protect Eve from the serpent and then threw her under the bus when God showed up that he did not deserve her help.

Sorry couldn't resist but would that be your bonified husband 😋

It's "bona fide", and it's Latin, not English.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Some people think one become genderless when they get saved and now men can marry men, and women can marry women. The perverts use this scripture to support their sexual perversions too!

There's all kinds of scriptures throughout the NT that indicates there are differences between men and women so some twist Galatians 3:28 to claim women can be in authority over men and then turn around and claim men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women.

This just shows they twist scripture at their own convenience to accommodate their own preconceived ideas that are based on the wisdom of man instead of the wisdom of God.

People like this should be ignored when it comes to sound doctrine seeing they don't have any.




If one was born a man this does not mean they are supposed to act feminine or wear women's clothing

The Body of Christ is called the bride of Christ but that is no license to get your transgender on ya know.




It was the Lord that had the Holy Spirit tell us in God's Word that church leaders are to be husbands of one wife.

This cannot be explained away without one treating God's Word like a cafeteria buffet line.

Some apparently cannot read, either that or they reject the plain reading of God's wisdom in His Word and instead cling to the wisdom of man which contributes to their mind becoming darkened.

That was very boney fide of you to say so 😋

You forgot to specify that the old covenant's thinking problem was PRIDE!!!! and that's what Jesus pulled them up on them.

I was comparing his speech to what we now know under the new covenant, so again I say your argument is not Biblically valid

You're still sidestepping the the problem, that none of that applies to us under the new covalent. You've been trying to use scriptures which have nothing to do with the subject matter. I have no idea why you can't understand simple English

If you believe that a false Church can save people, then that's your opinion and your entitled to have your opinion. I personally believe a Church must be a Biblical Church, for it to be valid, I know everyone has their private opinions about this but I'll stick with the Biblical model

He still rejected the child's application for Church membership. and He was warning Church Ministers not to cause one of these little ones - those who believe in Me - to stumble. He warned that it would be better if they put a millstone around his neck and jump into the sea.
None of that qualifies any child to become a Church member, all of it is aimed at false preachers who cause new or little - ones to sin. You need to ask yourself, what causes little ones to sin. The obvious answer is, false teaching. If a pastor teaches that it's OK to kill someone, just because you don't like the color of their skin. Then the child kills someone for that reason, who's fault is it?

That's the lesson Jesus was teaching, so don't try to twist those scriptures to justify the non Biblical doctrine of Church membership of children

I'm still waiting for somebody to present a single shred of evidence that God allows Children to join the Church.

There's no point in quoting unrelated verses to try and float a false notion which is dead in the water. All I ask for is a single shred of evidence to support this unbiblical belief and nobody has been able to step up to the plate.

I didn't see any mention of children in ACTS 16:33 we can't just assume that some family members were immature juveniles. If the text doesn't specify it, we have no right to superimpose our preconceived conclusion to it.

I didn't claim it does and it's quite immature to suggest that I did. I was responding to someone else who's wording suggested something to that effect