Women Bishop

[The Matt]

Anything further said by me would just be repeating what's already been stated.

[Titus2woman]

Ever have one of those ahhh-haaa moments?

I am pretty sure that the problem here is that I do not believe that any human should hold what you are probably envisioning when you use the word 'bishop' seekerman... I think that those who hang out with the pretty people all dressed up on Sunday morning, looking to get their double honor fix and applause are prideful and vulgar and a shame for any gender... So I have decided that while I thought I disagreed with you I actually do not... A 'bishop' in that way is not something that I think any woman should aspire to... I just couldn't see what you were protecting until now.

Glad we got that all cleared up and came to an agreement

[The Matt]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Ever have one of those ahhh-haaa moments?

I am pretty sure that the problem here is that I do not believe that any human should hold what you are probably envisioning when you use the word 'bishop' seekerman... I think that those who hang out with the pretty people all dressed up on Sunday morning, looking to get their double honor fix and applause are prideful and vulgar and a shame for any gender... So I have decided that while I thought I disagreed with you I actually do not... A 'bishop' in that way is not something that I think any woman should aspire to... I just couldn't see what you were protecting until now.

Glad we got that all cleared up and came to an agreement

I disagree T2W

How can this be prideful, vulgar, and a shame?

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by the matt

i disagree t2w

how can this be prideful, vulgar, and a shame?

rofl!

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Why didn't Jesus choose any women to be among His twelve original apostles? Jesus could not choose women to be among the twelve because it would not be wisdom for men and women to be traveling about together when many of them were single. Also, the twelve apostles fulfilled the "type and shadow" of the twelve patriarchs, so they had to be equal to men (Revelation 21:12, 14). However, this doesn't mean that he does not anoint women to fill an apostolic role today, as was established in the case of Junia.

Who was Junia? And, since the days of following Jesus were over, why then wasn't a women nominated to be a disciple when Judas was replaced? Why weren't the daughters of Jacob considered to be part of the 12? Dinah was a daughter of Jacob, why couldn't she have been part of the 12?

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

It has always been a strange doctrine that will allow women to go to foreign mission fields and teach heathen men, but will not allow the "heathen" men at home to be taught by the same women!

I do agree with this. Double standard if you ask me!

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

It makes absolutely no sense to think that a female who is learned in the Scriptures cannot teach a male who is unlearned. Additionally, it is acceptable for many women to teach Sunday School to children, and for mothers to teach their sons. Where do we draw the line and say to the women that can no longer teach a male once they reach a certain age? This may seem like a ridiculous scenario, yet there are those in the church who teach along these lines.

You'll note I did not say women have no position in teaching. In fact, Paul does encourage women to teach. I have heard many women teach and it was very encouraging and edifying.

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Those that are dogmatic in excluding women from the ministries of God usually are not walking in the Spirit, as they see women after the flesh (viewing her sex), not after the Spirit (seeing her heart and calling). The Lord admonishes us in His Word that we are not to look at one another with regard to our sex, race, class or culture, but rather we are to see one another through spiritual eyes.

"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation: To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:16-20).

Those verses are speaking of salvation. In Christ, in salvation, we are all alike. Yes. We all stand at the foot of the cross together. But salvation does not change me from a female to a male. I am still a female. Salvation, and the spirit cannot change that fact. That is a natural law. And what God had to say in the Garden to Eve still remains in effect today, because until Satan is bound, his head has not yet been completely bruised, and we women are still living under that same "curse" - as far as I know, women are not yet able to have childbirth without pain. Did salvation change that? No. This is a natural law God put in place, and will remain, despite salvation, and the Cross until the day Jesus Christ returns to bruise the head of Satan, which thing we have not yet seen.

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

God wants to use any person who will yield to His Spirit, regardless of that person's sex or capabilities. Those who are a new creature in Christ have His capabilities.

Absolutely. God used Sarah, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, the Mary's and probably more that we don't know of. But check out their record. It stands today. Their great deeds were also accomplished with that "ugly" word women hate - submission. Yet, it is a beautiful thing when completely understood It is after all, God's law, not man's.

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Our problem is that we must see there are rules for the fleshly, or earthly man, and there are rules for the spiritual man. Then, we must discern when to apply the appropriate Scripture. We are admonished in 2 Timothy 2:15 to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Yes, there are natural laws, and spiritual laws. But when women begin to stop having pain in childbirth, and males change to females upon salvation, then we can talk about how we don't have to deal with natural laws anymore, because spiritual laws rule.

We are dealing with a natural law set in place by God himself. I have read the scriptures, and read the stories as you have yourself. Submission is a team effort, as demonstrated by how Eve came OUT OF Adam's side. She was not made a separate and distinct being herself. That in itself is conclusive in proving that God made a point at creation that can't be ignored. It is a natural law, that no "spiritual" law can supersede. The women is of the man, from the man, and the two working together are what God intended. It is a beautiful thing, the way God created it.

But because women are the daughter's of Eve, it is something we don't want to hear. We want to somehow change things up. It just doesn't seem fair that we should be created for the glory of the man - according to Paul in 1 Cor. 11. Fair or not, that is how God created this natural law (submission).

T2W, I can tell this issue is near and dear to you. It is to me too. But I have seen firsthand the blessing that comes about with applying this principle to my life. It does work.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by seekerman

It's not about women being, or not being, honest and honorable, it's about God's instructions. His instructions says....

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

If a pastorate puts a woman in authority over a man, it's not to be.

Time for a rewrite?

Does your church allow women Sunday School teachers?

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Who was Junia? And, since the days of following Jesus were over, why then wasn't a women nominated to be a disciple when Judas was replaced? Why weren't the daughters of Jacob considered to be part of the 12? Dinah was a daughter of Jacob, why couldn't she have been part of the 12?

I do agree with this. Double standard if you ask me!

You'll note I did not say women have no position in teaching. In fact, Paul does encourage women to teach. I have heard many women teach and it was very encouraging and edifying.



Those verses are speaking of salvation. In Christ, in salvation, we are all alike. Yes. We all stand at the foot of the cross together. But salvation does not change me from a female to a male. I am still a female. Salvation, and the spirit cannot change that fact. That is a natural law. And what God had to say in the Garden to Eve still remains in effect today, because until Satan is bound, his head has not yet been completely bruised, and we women are still living under that same "curse" - as far as I know, women are not yet able to have childbirth without pain. Did salvation change that? No. This is a natural law God put in place, and will remain, despite salvation, and the Cross until the day Jesus Christ returns to bruise the head of Satan, which thing we have not yet seen.

Absolutely. God used Sarah, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, the Mary's and probably more that we don't know of. But check out their record. It stands today. Their great deeds were also accomplished with that "ugly" word women hate - submission. Yet, it is a beautiful thing when completely understood It is after all, God's law, not man's.



Yes, there are natural laws, and spiritual laws. But when women begin to stop having pain in childbirth, and males change to females upon salvation, then we can talk about how we don't have to deal with natural laws anymore, because spiritual laws rule.

We are dealing with a natural law set in place by God himself. I have read the scriptures, and read the stories as you have yourself. Submission is a team effort, as demonstrated by how Eve came OUT OF Adam's side. She was not made a separate and distinct being herself. That in itself is conclusive in proving that God made a point at creation that can't be ignored. It is a natural law, that no "spiritual" law can supersede. The women is of the man, from the man, and the two working together are what God intended. It is a beautiful thing, the way God created it.

But because women are the daughter's of Eve, it is something we don't want to hear. We want to somehow change things up. It just doesn't seem fair that we should be created for the glory of the man - according to Paul in 1 Cor. 11. Fair or not, that is how God created this natural law (submission).

T2W, I can tell this issue is near and dear to you. It is to me too. But I have seen firsthand the blessing that comes about with applying this principle to my life. It does work.

KBTW... I think you missed the post where I changed my mind and said I now completely agree with the idea that women can not be bishops. I think I had another idea of what was meant by bishop, considering it synonymous with 'Pastor' or 'Shepherd', 'Servant' etc. I believe that you, seekerman and probably the original poster actually are talking about something else entirely which is more of a lofty and high and lifted up place of honor...

I believe that no HUMAN should hold a place of exaltation over other humans and so therefore have to agree that a woman should not hold the 'OFFICE' of 'BISHOP'. Of course in my view neither should a man

Romans 16:7 (NIV)

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.

It was widely known and documented by the church fathers in their writings until the 1600's that Junia was a woman, that is until the authors of KJV changed her name to Junius and she became a man.

As long as we have the view that is being espoused in this thread we will find it OK for women to risk all and head into danger on the mission field, plant churches in our own backyards when there are no men willing, start movements (better have a look at Apostolic history) and even die as martyrs. But the minute a 'position' is open that might not come with great personal sacrifice, that could actually support a family, that is respected.... well we better get a MAN for that job. Do you not find that ridiculous?

Funny thing is that women, like the bumble bees Michael mentioned, will still be called by God and will still go, and will still work... and God will still bless it, as he always has, no matter what we think. It is only sad to me that these women will have to face the petty disapproval of other humans and that they will not willingly receive the love and support of their families, friends and communities. And sadder still that maybe with this teaching and training of our young girls to believe that they can not accept the call of God because it can not happen to a woman, we may stop some of them from giving God their utmost.

And this shames every Apostolic who's faith is built on the backs of women laborers who planted churches all over this country and across the world, many without husbands, who's organizations accept women to their bible schools for money, who license and ordain women but then teach in their churches that it is just empty paper. One does not need a license or ordination to teach girls Sunday school.

J am starting to agree with those who say that the church has become a business and it is one of the few businesses left that still has a glass ceiling and open prejudice. Again I say, what a shame.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

KBTW... I think you missed the post where I changed my mind and said I now completely agree with the idea that women can not be bishops. I think I had another idea of what was meant by bishop, considering it synonymous with 'Pastor' or 'Shepherd', 'Servant' etc. I believe that you, seekerman and probably the original poster actually are talking about something else entirely which is more of a lofty and high and lifted up place of honor...

I believe that no HUMAN should hold a place of exaltation over other humans and so therefore have to agree that a woman should not hold the 'OFFICE' of 'BISHOP'. Of course in my view neither should a man

Romans 16:7 (NIV)

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.

It was widely known and documented by the church fathers in their writings until the 1600's that Junia was a woman, that is until the authors of KJV changed her name to Junius and she became a man.

As long as we have the view that is being espoused in this thread we will find it OK for women to risk all and head into danger on the mission field, plant churches in our own backyards when there are no men willing, start movements (better have a look at Apostolic history) and even die as martyrs. But the minute a 'position' is open that might not come with great personal sacrifice, that could actually support a family, that is respected.... well we better get a MAN for that job. Do you not find that ridiculous?

Funny thing is that women, like the bumble bees Michael mentioned, will still be called by God and will still go, and will still work... and God will still bless it, as he always has, no matter what we think. It is only sad to me that these women will have to face the petty disapproval of other humans and that they will not willingly receive the love and support of their families, friends and communities. And sadder still that maybe with this teaching and training of our young girls to believe that they can not accept the call of God because it can not happen to a woman, we may stop some of them from giving God their utmost.

And this shames every Apostolic who's faith is built on the backs of women laborers who planted churches all over this country and across the world, many without husbands, who's organizations accept women to their bible schools for money, who license and ordain women but then teach in their churches that it is just empty paper.

[Michael Phelps]

The argument here is so faulty that it's laughable.

The same set of scriptures that people are trying to use to support the "men as bishops only" argument also contain statements like "I suffer women not to TEACH" and "Women should be silent in church".

However, these same folks will send women to UPC sanctioned Bible Colleges for "Christian Education" degrees, and will use women to teach Sunday School, run the Ladies Auxiliary department, and allow them to sing in church.

NOW, who's rewriting scripture?

It's a "take what I want, ignore the rest" mentality and it's prevalent in churches everywhere. Completely delegitimizes the argument.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

The argument here is so faulty that it's laughable.

The same set of scriptures that people are trying to use to support the "men as bishops only" argument also contain statements like "I suffer women not to TEACH" and "Women should be silent in church".

However, these same folks will send women to UPC sanctioned Bible Colleges for "Christian Education" degrees, and will use women to teach Sunday School, run the Ladies Auxiliary department, and allow them to sing in church.

NOW, who's rewriting scripture?

It's a "take what I want, ignore the rest" mentality and it's prevalent in churches everywhere. Completely delegitimizes the argument.

another poor comparison. I would address what "not teach" and "silent in church" means but just dont have the umph to do so.