WOMEN PREACHERS

It is the only objective basis for determining God's will.--Scott

Well, this is where we differ. There is no objectivity in FAITH. Many of you treat your faith as if it were knowledge. We seek the truth, but I question those that claim to have found it before they have died and been given it by the TRUE judge.

I believe Jesus was Christ, and that he died for my sins. Beyond that, it is academic conjecture. That Bible you thump is a material possession. The voice you hear when you read it, I hope, is the Holy Spirit, 1 of 3 forms of GOD.

I hear constant denial of the Holy Spirit in this thread with suggestions that the Paper Bible is the "objective" authority. "Objective" is a science word, not a faith word. If you deny the Holy Spirit, you deny Christ and God. "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" the only unforgiveable sin.

You treat this like a scientific treatise, but I suggest you just shelve it and meditate. Wherever your faith leads you, is the best you're gonna get.

 

So, if in the course of my meditations, I determine that God is actually a giant chicken that lives on one of the moons of Saturn...it's OK, because wherever my faith leads me, that's the best I'm gonna get.

Sorry...I'm going to have to do better than a feeling. A warm sensation in my gut might be the Holy Spirit, or a gas bubble. Scripture keeps my faith informed.

Does the HS guide me? Absolutely! But I am kept from being a slave to emotional impulse by the truths of what God has revealed in His word. His impulses always line up with Scriptural principles.

 

That is simply false. Scripture claims to be the objective basis for faith.

However, since you have stated this opinion... and it is made on the basis of your "faith" (that there is no objectivity)... prove your statement.

You have taken a self falsifying position.

Hebrews 11:1 calls it evidence... IOW's, "knowledge".

Christ promises "light" (ie. knowledge) through faith, John 12.

The dichotomy you would like to hang to simply isn't there. The Christian faith hinges on the argument that objective truth exists and is knowable because God has revealed it.

On what basis do you question it? Because you think it is untrue, right? Which means you think you know the truth... rendering you an abject hypocrite.

Because I believe that truth is knowable through the scriptures. I can actually affirm your contention that we cannot vainly claim to "know all truth" while still bound by flesh and its weakness. All things in scripture are not of the same certainty. But that doesn't mean that a very great number of things are not of absolute certainty.

"Should women lead the choir?" is somewhat less certain biblically than "Should a woman be the pastor or teacher of men?"

No. If it is academic conjecture then you have no good reason to believe in Jesus at all.

The paper, ink, cover, printing, human words,....? Yes. They are a material gift from God... that reveals His divine will and way exactly as He chose to deliver it to me and every other believer.

His voice we hear through it.

But He is not one of 3 forms of God. He is God. Modalism is not biblical.

No. What you hear is the denial that the Holy Spirit is revealing new truth to you... and especially truth that contradicts the truth recorded by the inspired writers of scripture. Writers who God marked by signs.

Nope. Truth is objective whether spiritual or material.

That is basically where we have been driving with you. The Holy Spirit spoke through the scriptures. They self affirm. They were written by men chosen of God. They are affirmed by God through results and preservation and the fruits of faith/obedience in/to them.

None of these things apply to that voice you say you hear... that apparently agrees with you rather than the Bible.

Yes. Ascribing things of the Spirit to someone else (particularly Satan but also Satan influenced sinners).

Please stop it.

No thanks. I see in you that simple things truly confound those wise in themselves. Meditation has a proper place... but that place is not in the stead of scripture.

 

Women can preach. They just shouldn't be the leader of the church. Just like God set aside men for the spiritual leadership of the family (for whatever reason, I don't know), he did the same for the spiritual family of the church. The leader is just there for practical purposes. My pastor is no more "important" than any other church member. However, remember in the family the wife still has crucial imput. She can also do so behind a pulpit. Just not in a permenant leadership position. Why God decided that, I don't know. But that is how it is.

 

Hi there I'm new to this board so if I don't come across right please excuse me. I can speak from experience. I used to be an assistant Pastor myself, I was on my way to Bible College to co-lead a massive Church In England, when God stepped in and showed me that is unbiblical for women to Pastor a Church. I really tried to get round it manipulate Scripture but at the end of the day after much soul searching and heartache, I gave it up. I know it is hard for some women to accept; but it is not about our feelings it is being obedient to God and his word. The Bible is clear no woman is to usurp authority over a man.

I have recently also come into the knowledge of obedince (submission) to my Husband, I can tell tell you, that when I tried to take the lead in the family my marriage was a mess on the brink of divorce. One day I felt like walking out on my husband and I was reading the Bible and God showed me about submission to my husband and his headship over me. To be honest I am really fortunate I have a wonderful patient husband who is easy to submit to, but it wan't easy for me to do. However my marriage has been transformed, My walk with The Lord is wonderful, I have grown into a much nicer person.

I wouldn't go back now and be a rebellious woman trying to take any authority in the Church, or try to be the leader in my home. The Bible must be obeyed it is the bottom line, if we step out of God's order we suffer emotionally, spiritually. Obeience brings greater blessings. I think we women have it easy. Men have it hard.
It takes humility and a strong willed woman to be obedient than disobeint there is nothing worse my husband says "than a gobby feminist".

 

First, quit picking on Paul. Paul did more to further respect of woman than anyone at that period in history.

Woman in Jewish and Greek society where totally demeaned. A husband could get rid of his wife for any reason. Paul, in, Ephesions may talk of submission but is is not servile submission it is love. Jesus was submissive to the Fater, was that deameaing, no, it was love. Paul tells the men to love their wifes as God loves the Church. Men, Paul says should be willing to give up their lifes for their wifes. Bythe society standards in those times saying that he would be considered a feminest sympathizer. Go over the chapter in Ephesions and look at the Greek used for the wifes love for the husband then look at the greek used for the husbands love for his wife. Think about it. And put it in historical context not todays.

Finally I think the real reason for God's prohibition against woman pastors was his foreknowledge of Joyce Meyer.

[TFC123 since you are no longer a Baptist (now CMA) you are not allowed to post in the Baptist Only Sections of the BB. Please restrict your post to the sections that are open to All Christians.]

[ March 17, 2006, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

ScottJ - "Hebrews 11:1 calls it evidence... IOW's, "knowledge"."
"Christ promises "light" (ie. knowledge) through faith, John 12."


You have twisted the Word beyond recognition. First of all, "evidence" is not "knowledge". Look it up. As a Philosophy/Logic Teacher, I will simply say you are wrong!

Secondly, the "light" isn't "knowledge" either. If you had read the bible, you'd know that "light" is "truth", Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. Truth is bigger than knowledge could ever be. Truth is a philosophical term, knowledge is nothing but scientific fact, big difference.

And Joyce Meyer---Red Herring. What because Jim Bakker was a homosexual, men shouldn't be pastors. You, get real. This is the worst Logic I have seen today and among my students are Freshmen.

By the way, Paul did get rid of his wife; either she died or he divorced her. He was a San Hedron (requiring marriage) yet he tells people to "be like him", single.

I am giving him a break. He was a normal guy, just like me. NOT a disciple of Christ which is the the authority the other authors have. Hwe even refused to study with the disciples themselves because they rebuked him. They sent an emissary to lead him back to the True Christian teachings and he perverted the opportunity.

Get your facts straight. He even referred to himeself as our "Father", directly against the teachings of Christ.

I am a Baptist not because of Paul, but because of Christ. he is my authority. I have yet to find anyone to question the RED LETTER teachings, but Paul has led the church into such devisiveness, it threatens to destroy us.

PS- Just because I think you're wrong doesn't mean I don't love you anyway.

 

MrSuper Baptist,
Were you referring to my post? Are you for real are you saying Paul was not an Apostle. He refused to study with the Apostles??? Are you a super baptist, maybe thats why I'm not. You give Baptists a bad name [***personal attack removed].

Where does it say Paul had a wife and got rid of her?
Also Mr Super Baptist Paul was not a San Hedron or Sandedrin spelled properly my sixth grade student have better logic than you. He was a Pharessee, know what that is? That required marrage, but since it says nothing in the Bible either way married or unmarried maybe God did not feel that was importaint.

I never said Paul was or was not married neither does the Bible which according to you I don't read but you do. It's must be great to be able to read people the way you do. Ooops there's a log in your eye.


The point I was trying to make is that Christianity did more for women in that culture than any religion or person did.

You are one closed minded individual. I was not venerating Paul.

Where did he refer to himself as our Father??

Why would God select such a person to write most of the New testament. And where did he learn so much of Jesus, the apostles, other apostles, remember the Bible says Paul was an Apostle even Peter confirms this but you don't seem to think so.

You have to read more than the red letters buddy. Oh maybe picture bibles only come like that.

You may be the first person I ever heard say Paul led the church into devisiveness(your spelling) and that he questioned the red letter teachings.

As for the Joyce Meyers remark. I was not referrig to, nor have thought of Mr. Baker in years. The remark was meant in jest, if you had a sense of humor [***personal attack removed] you may have caught that.

And you are a teacher? I feel sorry for your students. You are so off base.

I am not wrong and the more I see posts by people like you the less I can truly say I love them.

This board has done more harm to my faith in people who call themselves Christian than a weekend in Tiajuana. Now I realize why I do not go to Baptist church any more.

[***personal attack removed]

[***According to BB Posting Rule 4 Personal Attacks will not be tolerated. Debate the issues and do not attack the person holding the opposite view. Likewise, since you are no longer a Baptist (now CMA) you are not allowed to post in the Baptist Only Sections of the BB. Please restrict your post to the sections that are open to All Christians.]

[ March 17, 2006, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Hello Gail,

Very well spoken words of wisdom.

Bible-Boy

 

This is all nice deconstructionist theory. However, most are arguments from silence (a formal fallacy). It is true that Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth of Christ. However, it is wrong to assert that he was ignorant of the fact just because he never mentioned its happening. There may well be other reasons why Paul chose not to mention the Virgin Birth. He may not have considered it relevant to his audience (or the purpose of his writing at the time). He may have known that his audience at the time was fully aware of the event (this goes for all the miracles listed above). It may be correct to argue that Paul may have been ignorant of the Virgin Birth because he does not mention it. However, it is a fallacy to say Paul was ignorant of the Virgin Birth of Christ. I would expect a Philosophy/Logic teacher to know and recognize the difference between these two statements and not fall for the fallacy. It is clear that Paul was aware of Christ's resurrection because he talks about it.

 

If you read the whole comment you would see that I presented arguments on both sides of the issue. As I said the apologists for Paul expalin away his departure from Christ's story by explaining he "may have known, but just didn't write about it."

No one addresses how divisive Paul's writings have been, or maybe no one has noticed. If you spend as much time witnessing as I do, you find it is so easy to defend Christ's direct teachings as described by his witnesses. But the minute women bring up Paul, I run. I don't defend him as "authorized" or inspired, nor do I assume he was trying to start his own religion outside of Christ, any more than I am.

Again, I say the RED LETTERS are so flawless as to demand my agreement and faith. It is amazing how few people have had the courage to consider the possibility of a mistake in such a large collection of writings, that MEN in jolly old England decided was the inspired Word of God.

Meanwhile, I'll reserve judgement and pose these questions to the Holy Spirit who answers them in languages other than KJ English.

 

Yes... and? God commands division. Division from sin. He isn't apologetic about it either.

God's way is right because it is His way. He has every right to demand obedience whether you happen to agree with His way or not. God established an order between the genders. He didn't ask your permission nor wait on your approval... and did so full well knowing that you would object.

IOW's, God had no respect whatsoever for your vain protests of His decisions.

If you have a difficulty with Paul then you probably aren't presenting the Christ of the Bible the way He intended.

That says a great deal more about you than Paul.

He wasn't trying to start his own religion. You are whether consciously or not.

You don't have to defend him. He claimed inspiration... and Peter ascribed it to him as well... BTW, neither of them ascribed it to you.

The amazing thing about this is that it reveals an ignorance about the canon of scripture. One that would be completely unexpected if you were as studied as you claim.

Your problem is that the other faithful versions affirm the KJV... as does overwhelming historical evidence for the text of the Bible.

 

Your numerous theological problems are rooted in the age-old question of Genesis 3. "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Indeed, has God said,' ". Before this moment there had never been any questions, wonderings, or dilemmas. No queries. Only belief and understanding of what God had SAID, of His WORDS.

"Has God said", i.e., the questioning of God's Word, is the vehicle Satan has used and will continue to use as he finishes out his global, apostate kingdom. It is simplistic, but POWERFUL and its deception is even more effective on us than it was on Eve because our human nature is fallen from birth. For a creature to question what God has said, he must first exercise the right to sit in judgment of his Creator.

What you have done is the same thing the subject of this thread, feminism, has done - subjected God's Word to human judgment.

NO. God, through Paul and other writers of infallible, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, is currently separating the wheat from the tares.

They are only divisive for those who don't believe them or, worse, have the gall to sit in judgment of them and their Author, God the Holy Spirit.

You will find that someone the instant you look into a mirror. Try out some of these RED LETTER teachings (caps mine):

"Begone, Satan: for it is WRITTEN ... you have HEARD that it was SAID ... For this is he, of whom it is WRITTEN ... Have you not READ what David did ... Or have you not READ in the law ... You hypocrites, well did Isaiah PROPHESY of you, SAYING ..."

and again,

"Have you not READ, that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female ... It is WRITTEN, My house shall be called ... Yea, have you never READ, out of the mouth ... Did you never READ IN THE SCRIPTURES ... Heaven and earth will pass away, but My WORDS will never pass away ... it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for ONE STROKE OF A LETTER in the law to drop out ... And you have not HIS WORD abiding in you ... He that believes on me, as the SCRIPTURE HAS SAID ..."

and once more,

"SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES, for .. they testify of Me".

"SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES, for..YOU THINK you have eternal life ..... How then does David IN THE SPIRIT call him Lord, SAYING (writing) ..... But if you believe not HIS (Moses) WRITINGS, how shall you believe MY WORDS?"


You, my friend, are in GRAVE DANGER. You confront and contradict the very Holy Spirit you claim to so admire, worship, and follow. I beg you to repent before God, and I pray that He will help you - your life is at stake. There are two things you need to know right away:

1) There is a COUNTERFEIT Holy Spirit that is very real and

2) God the Holy Spirit will NEVER contradict or be in opposition to God's written Word. NEVER. On that, you may confidently stake your life.

Godspeed.

[ March 17, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: IveyLeaguer ]

 

How come when someone starts a thread entitled "How do I love my neighbor as Christ commanded", the thread gets, at best, one or two pages of responses; but when the thread is entitled "women preachers", it goes one and on for seven or more pages?

I think we have our priorities all wrong.

 

...or perhaps we don't disagree so much on how to love our neighbors... or at least don't think we do...

 

Men are still power-hungry and refuse to share any of it with women. That's why so many are here fighting for their right to continue their bigotry and repression. Even some women have learned to hate themselves to satisfy their men.

 

SuperBaptist,
I do not rely on the men in jolly ole England to tell me Pauls letters are divinely inspired. Pauls conversion experience tells me the letters should be in the Bible. You have a lot of good, thought provoking ideas, and I am glad someone your age is taking such an interest in the Christian faith.

Scott,
You dont have a clue about canon history or historical data for the Scripture.

 

My age? 45? (My Pic is a joke) I have to use smaller words, myself in order to let SFIC understand me You know, us old folks are kinda slow...

 

Bro Super,
I am sorry about that. Im only 8 years ahead of you. I see you are a professor, and since I am an electronics tech at the postal service, I am sure your wording and understanding of the Bible is much better than mine.

 

Here, I just talk with my fingers. I have noticed some here talk with just one finger though. I even see a few high fives, like they are playing a game. Men will be... boys, I guess.