Blacks and the UPCI

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

:et's use your it was just for them argument and test it.

....The promise for power to testify was just for the 12 disciples, Elder ??

... was the instruction to just the 12 ... and not for us males today?

they were instructed to preach unto the ends of the earth .... did they obey the commandment as you claim they were the only one's commissioned ...when did Peter go to Peru?

The commandments in these passages are for all his disciples ... male and female ... yesterday and today ... your argument is logically and theologically HOLEY.

Dan your problem is that all these commissioned were MEN not one woman included. That is the problem I see with women preachers(and yes I do believe there are many good godly women who have done good for the kingdom of God) there is NOT one example or command given to women to preach(that preach or teach in a public assembly to men). The qualifications are masculine in nature thus they are gender prohibited and NOT ONE woman is NAMED serving in the 5-fold ministry. It just is not scriptural.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan your problem is that all these commissioned were MEN not one woman included. That is the problem I see with women preachers(and yes I do believe there are many good godly women who have done good for the kingdom of God) there is NOT one example or command given to women to preach(that preach or teach in a public assembly to men). The qualifications are masculine in nature thus they are gender prohibited and NOT ONE woman is NAMED serving in the 5-fold ministry. It just is not scriptural.

Phobe was a helper to the church and Priscilla helped to expound the word of The Lord,and Lydia was also a help to the church if my understanding is correct.
I believe women can preach but I don't see a women bishop in the NT. church.

[HeavenlyOne]

Started out as blacks in the UPC and turns into a women preachers are wrong thread.



But I still wear women's pants and cut my hair!!!

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Started out as blacks in the UPC and turns into a women preachers are wrong thread.



But I still wear women's pants and cut my hair!!!

Are you a UPCI pastor?

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Theophil

Are you a UPCI pastor?

No, but I went to a Holiday Inn once.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan your problem is that all these commissioned were MEN not one woman included. That is the problem I see with women preachers(and yes I do believe there are many good godly women who have done good for the kingdom of God) there is NOT one example or command given to women to preach(that preach or teach in a public assembly to men). The qualifications are masculine in nature thus they are gender prohibited and NOT ONE woman is NAMED serving in the 5-fold ministry. It just is not scriptural.

Imagine if your principle was applied in other instances.

Example: Christ only instructed commemorating the Lord's Supper to the 12.

Does this mean it was just for the 12 or just for men?

No instructions are given solely to witness/preach on the qualification of being male ... in Scripture either. Yet we see practical examples of women in Scripture winning people to the Lord and ministering in the house churches of the book of Acts and epistles.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Imagine if your principle was applied in other instances.

Example: Christ only instructed commemorating the Lord's Supper to the 12.

Does this mean it was just for the 12 or just for men?

No instructions are given solely to witness/preach on the qualification of being male ... in Scripture either. Yet we see practical examples of women in Scripture winning people to the Lord and ministering in the house churches of the book of Acts and epistles.

Right on, Bro. Don't give up.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Imagine if your principle was applied in other instances.

Example: Christ only instructed commemorating the Lord's Supper to the 12.

Does this mean it was just for the 12 or just for men?

No instructions are given solely to witness/preach on the qualification of being male ... in Scripture either. Yet we see practical examples of women in Scripture winning people to the Lord and ministering in the house churches of the book of Acts and epistles.

Apostle Paul reemphasized the Lord's supper and there is a record where the early church observed it. That is what you need Dan and sorry you don't have it and honestly you have the opposite the prohibition in Paul's writings and the qualifications which are gender restrictive and NO example in the NT of women preaching in public assemblies to MEN! Women preached as every saint preaches in their public witnessing but NOT as a five-fold ministry to public assemblies to MEN. If so where? What was her name again?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Apostle Paul reemphasized the Lord's supper and there is a record where the early church observed it. That is what you need Dan and sorry you don't have it and honestly you have the opposite the prohibition in Paul's writings and the qualifications which are gender restrictive and NO example in the NT of women preaching in public assemblies to MEN! Women preached as every saint preaches in their public witnessing but NOT as a five-fold ministry to public assemblies to MEN. If so where? What was her name again?

Bro Epley

Let me get your thoughts on this if I may...
I have always felt, and still do to an extent, that as much as Paul's writings were insprired by God, they also often reflected the culture of his day. (For example, Paul says “greet all the brothers with a holy kiss” (1 Thess 5:26), but this is something we almost never do today. We understand that that verse reflected the cultural norms of Paul’s day)

So in that male-dominated culture, the leaders, preachers, etc would naturally have been male anyway. Thus when he says a Bishop "must be the husband of one wife" etc, he is speaking based on the culturally accepted concept that the preacher would be a man. This is not, however stating that she couldn't be a woman. Paul never explicitly stated that the preacher could not be a woman -- he spoke as if it was taken for granted that the preacher would be a man, but he never taught on any specific gender requirement to be a preacher or bishop. (Did he speak in terms of moral requirements and leadership requirements?, yes. Gender requirements? no)

Also, if we were to use the same line of argument you and others use... based on the unwritten assumptions in Paul's writing on this, we might say a single man cant be a pastor/bishop. Why? Paul did say that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife". Is being a husband then a requirement to be a bishop? I think we'd all agree it's not. Paul wasn't speaking in terms of marriage being a requirement of a bishop, but it was merely a generally implied assumption among those he was writing to, since generally speaking, most bishops were married.

Thus if Paul speaking of the bishop being married was just an implied understanding or assumption, but not a requirement per se, could we not also make the case that his speaking of male bishops and preachers was also based on an assumption of maleness, while not necessarily speaking of maleness being a requirement or condition to be a preacher?

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

the prohibition in Paul's writings and the qualifications which are gender restrictive and NO example in the NT of women preaching in public assemblies to MEN!

You refer to his language as gender restrictive. Rather Paul seems to be using what would be called "presumptive language" , not restrictive. Restrictive language would require that he is specifically ruling women out of pulpit ministry, which he never did. My 2 cents...

Looking forward to your thoughts on this, sir (or anyone else who would care to comment on this particular issue)

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Bro Epley

Let me get your thoughts on this if I may...
I have always felt, and still do to an extent, that as much as Paul's writings were insprired by God, they also often reflected the culture of his day. (For example, Paul says “greet all the brothers with a holy kiss” (1 Thess 5:26), but this is something we almost never do today. We understand that that verse reflected the cultural norms of Paul’s day)

So in that male-dominated culture, the leaders, preachers, etc would naturally have been male anyway. Thus when he says a Bishop "must be the husband of one wife" etc, he is speaking based on the culturally accepted concept that the preacher would be a man. This is not, however stating that she couldn't be a woman. Paul never explicitly stated that the preacher could not be a woman -- he spoke as if it was taken for granted that the preacher would be a man, but he never taught on any specific gender requirement to be a preacher or bishop. (Did he speak in terms of moral requirements and leadership requirements?, yes. Gender requirements? no)

Also, if we were to use the same line of argument you and others use... based on the unwritten assumptions in Paul's writing on this, we might say a single man cant be a pastor/bishop. Why? Paul did say that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife". Is being a husband then a requirement to be a bishop? I think we'd all agree it's not. Paul wasn't speaking in terms of marriage being a requirement of a bishop, but it was merely a generally implied assumption among those he was writing to, since generally speaking, most bishops were married.

Thus if Paul speaking of the bishop being married was just an implied understanding or assumption, but not a requirement per se, could we not also make the case that his speaking of male bishops and preachers was also based on an assumption of maleness, while not necessarily speaking of maleness being a requirement or condition to be a preacher?



You refer to his language as gender restrictive. Rather Paul seems to be using what would be called "presumptive language" , not restrictive. Restrictive language would require that he is specifically ruling women out of pulpit ministry, which he never did. My 2 cents...

Looking forward to your thoughts on this, sir (or anyone else who would care to comment on this particular issue)

I do believe the qualifications are gender restrictive here are the reasons:
1. The bishop was to be the husband of one wife*(gkr. a one woman-man) did that mean a bishop must be married? The man who wrote this was NOT married and neither was Barnabas(1Cor. 9:5, 7:8).
2. The bishop was to rule his house are women to rule the house?
3. The WIVES were given qualifications? What qualifications are there for the husbands of bishopresses?
Then I have wondered about what happens when they are with child? Nursing? Tending children?