Do You Believe In Women Preachers?

[Scott Hutchinson]

I can see Women ministering even preaching ,but I don't find a woman pastor in the bible.Sorry but if it's there my Holy Ghost will show me.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is one view on the subject.http://www.faithfulword.com/tracts/W...n_Ministry.pdf

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

And the debate goes round and round.

Debate? Who said this was a debatable issue?

Originally Posted by ILG

I am for women preachers, was a woman preacher for quite a number of years.

Here is why it's not a debatable issue:

You’ve decided whatever you feel is true is indeed truth. Since you were a woman preacher, it is automatically valid. Furthermore, those you fellowshipped with were continually enforcing it in your mind. So therefore women preachers are Biblical to you.

David Koresh, and the Waco Branch Davidians, believed in a future holocaust that was supposed to usher in their end time belief. When the ATF and FBI surrounded the Branch Davidian compound, it only strengthen their resolve of their end time belief being Biblical truth. The situation also validated their leader David Koresh.

I said all that to say this: because you were a woman preacher at one time and the churches you fellowshipped validated you, you never doubted what happened personally to you was Biblical . You accepted female leadership over married men as indeed correct and not an issue to be debated. Also, anyone who dared question the validity of female leadership over adult married men, mocked as being backward or Neanderthal in their thinking.

Originally Posted by ILG

I think that people who are opposed to women preachers do so because of a belief they believe is biblical.

Isn't that the reason why we do anything in our religions? We hold onto doctrines and dogmas because we not only think they are Biblically based, but because the others in our group help build a support system to propagate and validate our certain beliefs. There is a tiny minority who actually researches and bravely makes changes regardless the repercussions.

Originally Posted by ILG

However, unfortunately, I do think it propgates subjugation of women, however honest hearted the belief may be.

Once again, anyone touching the sacred cow is NOT shown Biblical or historical data to prove them wrong. Instead, they are infomed they are overbearing Tarzans chaffing at the bit to drag Jane by her hair.

This isn’t further from the truth. The body of Christ is headed up by men. As the Apostle Paul taught, the head of the woman is the man.
Women are told to submit to their OWN husband. Not to anyone else but their OWN husbands. It is very bizarre and un-biblical to see a situation where there is a a husband who submits to the authority of a woman.

Lord bless you

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

[RandyWayne]

Women are told to submit to their OWN husband. Not to anyone else but their OWN husbands. It is very bizarre and un-biblical to see a situation where there is a a husband who submits to the authority of a woman.

This last sentence is somewhat confusing. You seem to contradict yourself inside of a few words. Where does a woman submitting to her OWN husband translate to no man being allowed to submit to ANY woman?

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Caston Smith

Greetings fellow Apostolics!

As many of you know there has been some controversy over the years in our ranks about women preachers. Just wanted to know what everyone's opinion is about this subject.

Also if you are against women preachers please provide scriptures and give us your explanation of why you feel this way.

I don't believe in women preachers.

My belief is based upon the following scriptures...

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Witness # 1 - 1 Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience...

Witness # 2 - 1 Cor 14:34 ...as also saith the law.

Witness # 3 - 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

I don't have a problem with women teaching other women though.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I don't believe in women preachers.

My belief is based upon the following scriptures...

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Witness # 1 - 1 Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience...

Witness # 2 - 1 Cor 14:34 ...as also saith the law.

Witness # 3 - 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

I don't have a problem with women teaching other women though.

Here's where I"m confused.

You quoted scripture that said let the women be SILENT in the church. It didn't say it was ok for them to teach other women, it simply says "let them be silent"

So, how can you use this scripture to support your "no women preachers' theory, but it's ok for them to teach other women?

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Here's where I"m confused.

You quoted scripture that said let the women be SILENT in the church. It didn't say it was ok for them to teach other women, it simply says "let them be silent"

So, how can you use this scripture to support your "no women preachers' theory, but it's ok for them to teach other women?

Because women teaching women does not cause them to usurp authority over the man.

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

In the above Paul shows that its okay for the aged women to teach the young women. I don't have a problem with women teaching women.

Paul explains the silence part...

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

Silence meaning not to teach men, but could also include not disrupting the service.

Also, concerning men in high leadership/authoritarian roles, consider this...

Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Notice he's addressing men and brethren.

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Notice "of these men...must one be ordained". Women were not even in the realm of possibility for being considered as a replacement for Judas.

God bless.

[ILG]

Debate? Who said this was a debatable issue?

Since the issue is being debated here on this board, it is a debatable issue, whether you are willing to admit that or not. Actually, any issue is debatable.

You’ve decided whatever you feel is true is indeed truth.

What makes you thinkk that it is not you who is just randomly deciding that women are not called?

Since you were a woman preacher, it is automatically valid. Furthermore, those you fellowshipped with were continually enforcing it in your mind. So therefore women preachers are Biblical to you.

Actually, when I was called, I did not believe in women preachers. Try that one on for size. And, many of the people surrounding me did not believe in women preachers.

David Koresh, and the Waco Branch Davidians, believed in a future holocaust that was supposed to usher in their end time belief. When the ATF and FBI surrounded the Branch Davidian compound, it only strengthen their resolve of their end time belief being Biblical truth. The situation also validated their leader David Koresh.

I said all that to say this: because you were a woman preacher at one time and the churches you fellowshipped validated you, you never doubted what happened personally to you was Biblical . You accepted female leadership over married men as indeed correct and not an issue to be debated. Also, anyone who dared question the validity of female leadership over adult married men, mocked as being backward or Neanderthal in their thinking.

How would you know what I doubted and what I didn't? How would you know anything about my struggles or lack thereof? The truth is, you know nothing of it. And, usually, the smeller is the feller. Maybe you should apply your own thinking to your own experiences.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

This last sentence is somewhat confusing. You seem to contradict yourself inside of a few words. Where does a woman submitting to her OWN husband translate to no man being allowed to submit to ANY woman?

I wonder when the cut off date is for teen boys? Is it the day they turn 18? The day they turn 20 like the children of Israel? Maybe if they are still living in the same house?

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Your point is what I adressed, and showed you that Phebe was never a pastor, or teacher of adult males. Period.




So, what you are saying, is that you have no want to research this, nor are you willing to find out what prostatis means concerning the Greek and Roman culture? Didn't I reference you to the issue of what she was? Prostatis, means "one who stand by in case of need." Prostatis is the feminine form of the of proistemi. This means that Phebe was not a proistemi which would indicate that she was first in rank, one who rules over, and provides help.

Instead of looking through web sites that back your position, try and blow some dust of a few lexicons, dictionaries and find the truth.

At least make a grand effort to look this information up. Hey, I’m not your enemy, nor do I have some crusade to stop women, from preaching or teaching. I can't find women apostles, pastors, female leadership over adult married men in the Bible. Let's be reasonable, but let's consider the information. Shall we?



Please no offence, but if you happen to research your own doctrine, you may see that the problem stems from one Greek word.

The Greek word in Rom 16:1 is διακονία, diakonia, and not διάκονος which is the masculine. When you look at the actual text you will see διακονον which is an accusative, singular, feminine noun. Making it immposible for Phebe to hold a position as priest, pastor, apostle, or bishop.


Some concordance and American Churchanity doesn't really take into consideration that the everyday church goer has no idea about the Greek, nor Greek grammer. So, when the would-be student dives into the concordance he or she grabs whatever number is beside the English word and takes it as fact, and never questions. Why? Because they are only concerned about the word, and not how that word fits into the sentence.

Please look it up for yourself.



Please forgive me, but after hours of going back and forth with individuals who proclaim the "Female Preacher over Adult Married Men" doctrine, you tend to point out what they believe before they admit it.



If you looked at the verse in question and place your thoughts within the text it would be that she was over Paul. Let's look at the verse.

"for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also."

Was she an Elder to the Apostle Paul? Absolutely not, but if we use the words correctly we see that she helped finance, or succor things for others, including Paul.



Indeed, it simply meant that Sister Phebe had business in Rome (due to her job as prostatis) and while she was there she was to deliver the scroll, and in return the church family was to help her out in any way she needed.



InterVarsity Press you sure? I will look into it, as you requested.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

I just got back from a 16 hour day and am checking in. You know, after reading your response here I can do one of three things.

1. I can bow to your superior intellect and Bible knowledge. But that would be disingenuous of me since I don't think you are are correct.
2. I run the risk of appearing as if I am skerred and beg out of the 'discussion' due to my lack of time to engage at this point.
3. I can continue to discuss with you, a pointless activity since you make it habit to misconstrue what I say, you put words in my mouth, and you ignore other things I say.

I opt for the second option because of my severe time constraints and because of number three. I hesitated to enter this discussion and now regret that did because I cannot follow through. I initially responded in anger to Pastor Epley's flippant attitude and I shouldn't have. Pastor Epley's derisive sarcasm and condescension and your insults do not contribute to a respectful or fruitful conversation. If you had this unteachable, arrogoant attitude as a student in our school you would be expelled for insubordination and divisiveness. You seem to think that you are the only one who is able to do research and think clearly on a matter and you talk down to people as if they're stupid. You imply that I eisegete scripture and do my research on the internet. That's untrue and insulting. I had a discussion about this topic just this week with one of my professors who is a published author and recognized leading authority on women's ministry and Roman culture of the period. In addition, I do look at lexicons, and concordances, and commentaries, and all sorts of well known and obscure sources to form my views. My opinions are not uninformed. You would do well to treat people with respect and stop treating people who disagree with you as opponents and as people of lesser intelligence. Even if you were correct on an issue, your boorish and arrogant attitude sours the discussion so as to prevent reasonable people from even considering your point of view seriously.